Skip to main content

Full text of "Harland Word Controlled Humans A Brief History ( 1981)"

See other formats




John Harland 

Author of 

BRAVE NEW WORLD, A Different Projection 

The processes that turn individual humans into 
monstrous group organisms is the significant aspect of 
history on which this book focuses. "Civil" and "religious" 
groups, growing into powers by destruction of 
individual souls and control of individual will, receive the 
same examination — with no glorified generalities glossing 
over the horror that sharp focus reveals. 

Concerned primarily with the word conditioning that 
now dominates America and Europe, this work highlights 
the need to first remove the obstructions from our own 
eyes — before trying to correct the faults of others. The 
history and current practices in our own conditioning are 
examined from a new perspective. No issues are 
dodged. A surprising view of Christianity is controversial 
and cogent. 

This is a book for those who want to be individuals. 
There is none of the usual summing up that "we, as a 
group" should take some vague corrective action. 
Instead, a clear possibility for individuals to take effective 
action is spelled out in precise detail. 

Every intelligent person is already highly concerned 
with the problem presented — and there is no intelligent 
person who will not have his mind stretched, and be 
stimulated to a sharper perception, by this book's 
unusual perspective. 







































Never, no never, did nature say one thing and wisdom another. 
Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller 



Words can be used to tell others what an individual perceives; 
they can also be used to override perception, condition or destroy 
thought, and control humans. When the first word trails were being 
made in the expanding growth of conscious ideas, there was a fork 
in the road of possibilities. The majority of humans turned off in a 
direction that has now been made into a broad highway. Nature's 
method of making individual perception a major factor affecting 
survival was the way rejected; acceptance of the individual by a 
word-conditioned group was made the dominant requirement af- 
fecting the individual's survival. As I see it, the fork we have taken 
can lead only to human extinction or biological regression; the 
other could have led to a further evolutionary advance. I want to 
contrast the two directions, recommend the other fork, and set 
forth a procedure for getting over to it. 

This means contrasting the respect-for-nature direction of such 
peoples as Eskimos, American Indians, and early northern Euro- 
peans to the direction of more completely word controlled peoples 
— and such a contrast is not easy, because only the latter have 
valued words highly enough to make written histories. In these 
histories they have ignored dissenting individuals, and they have 
derogated peoples moving in a direction other than theirs as 
"uncivilized." Also they have made their own records of wars and 
"nations" appear as the whole of human history. Word condition- 
ing now rides in seeming triumph over individual perception. The 
viewpoint of the non-word-controlled people has been discarded as 
being not worthy of attention. 

Centuries ago that other viewpoint was stated effectively, but 
now the very words to talk about it have had their meanings 
destroyed. The facet of dominant current thought, with which I 
must take issue, is the assumption that human "progress" has 
followed a straight line course from lower animals, through 
"primitive" peoples, to "civilization." This assumption results in 


the attitude that a return to savagery is the only possibility other than 
present practices. 

I am not going to advocate a return to the "noble savage." I want to 
talk about two different directions. I recognize a prehistory fork in the 
road; and I recognize that all "civilized advantages" could have 
developed as fully if humans had been going in the other direction that 
was not taken. We cannot go back in history, but I want to point out the 
prehistory fork and recommend the other direction as an option that is 
still open to us. 

Before going into full detail, I will give a quick, fictional picture of 
prehistory peoples moving in different directions, with their directions 
strongly affected by their degree of attention to the natural universe. 
The relative respect-for-nature shown by peoples on the two forks of the 
road will be accented by picturing one in a cold and one in a warm 
climate — and fictionalizing a greater difference between them than 
climate alone would probably warrant. The purpose of this brief initial 
picture is not to imply that climate should be viewed as the most critical 
factor, but only to provide a simplified framework for further 


In cold climates survival was possible only if each individual related 
with understanding to the whole natural world. Conditions encouraged 
this understanding: The cold enforced times of isolation, times when a 
lone person was at the mercy of natural forces, and was thereby 
stimulated to think about how he or she related to the whole universe. 
Such isolated persons saw the big picture: They saw all living things as 
having a basic relation to each other, and they saw the living as having a 
basic relation to the non-living part of the universe — everything 
interrelated. Seeing themselves as parts of everything, they either 
thought, or seemed to remember, that in times long past, they had come 
from — that is, they had been born or evolved from — one whole. 
Huddled alone in some womb-like warmth amid cold, they seemed to 
remember their millions of years of past, to remember when the first life 
came to be, and even before. The memory of everything seemed to be 
within them. 

Around the campfire — a sort of womb shared by a group — they 
told each other of these pre-birth memories or dreams. Since most of 
them had experiences of this kind, most understood and had respect for 
each other's dreams or inherited memories. 

However bare survival made exacting demands, and life often 
depended on wise personal decisions combined with close personal 


relations. Those who survived were those who chose which persons 
to avoid, and with which to risk their lives, on a basis of each per- 
son's relation to the entire universe of reality — as demonstrated in 
that individual's waking behavior. Personal perception was a 
highly significant factor in survival. Dreams were understood and 
respected but the survivors were those who gave priority to waking 
perception of observed reality. 


In warm climates people easily obtained abundant natural food 
and needed little protection from the elements. These factors made 
for denser populations, and the denser population caused people to 
think less about their relation to the natural world and more about 
their relationships to people as a group. They were less sensitive to 
their solitary thoughts, to their dreams or inherited memories, and 
had less womb-like experiences that brought innate-knowledge-of- 
the-total-universe, derived from individual introspection, into com- 
parison with verbal-knowledge, acquired from the group. Each did 
not feel the critical, moment by moment, direct link between 
himself or herself and the universe as a whole. 

When those few who paid attention to their inherited memories, 
or had what they considered to be significant dreams, told others 
about such big dreams, they discovered that few had similar ex- 
periences. The universe -to-individual experience was crowded out 
by more blatant interpersonal relationships. Everyone was impress- 
ed by colorful personalities. So the few who placed high value on 
their solitary experiences talked of their inherited memories or 
dream experiences as communications coining from a personality 
— from the "spirit" of the whole universe. Doubtless the dreamers 
were influenced by the constant focus on personal relations to such 
an extent that the unique experiences actually did seem to come 
from somewhere outside themselves. 

Those who had these unique experiences found that uniqueness, 
itself, gave the dreamers prestige in the eyes of others. Some of the 
unscrupulous added extra drama to their dreams in order to create 
a prestige-building awe of their privileged contact with a "spirit" 
others could not see. It worked. 

Because living was easy, words describing a dramatic relation- 
ship to "spirits" of the universe became more important in 
establishing prestige than demonstrated ability in relation to the 
universe of objective reality. Good hunters, and others of much ex- 
perience and ability, lost their places as leaders to those claiming to 
have special communion with spirits knowing more than ordinary 


humans. The new type of leaders, who began to lead groups by 
words that created awe, I will call "priests." 

These priests first transformed prestige into control by public 
spectacles where a word-stimulated group obeyed the purported 
commands of the priest's private dream-spirit and did such things 
as dropping someone, who they said had offended the awe- 
inspiring-spirit, down a fire-spewing volcano. If no volcano was 
handy, they made a spectacle of "offering the offender to the 
spirit" by dramatically burning him or her on a conspicuous rock 
structure, while a frightened but fascinated crowd looked on in 
awe. The "spirit" whose supposed "will" the priest told to the peo- 
ple to incite such action is commonly called a "god." 

* * * 

"God" is a difficult word to use because it has several meanings. 
As some people use it, it means the comprehensive creative in- 
telligence of the universe. Others use it to mean a stone idol or 
something completely imaginary. Recognizing that the one word 
can mean many different things, I will try to make clear how I am 
using it each time as I go along. To avoid making implications not 
backed by clear statements, I will not selectively capitalize the word 
in accordance with some practices, except when quoting the writing 
of others. 

* * * 

Now to continue. Some, who were skeptical about the nature or 
existence of a super-powerful being that others called god, became 
envious of the ease with which the priests controlled great groups of 
credulous people; so they invented gods of their own. They, 
themselves, then became priests, or spokesmen, for their gods. 

Soon there were many different groups of word controlled peo- 
ple, manipulated as groups by priests, who claimed to be speaking 
for different gods. Some made stone or metal images of these gods, 
some identified them with the sun, the moon, the stars, the moun- 
tains, the sea — all sorts of things. Some stayed with the original 
idea that their god was an invisible spirit that spoke to them in 
private or in dreams. 

While all this was going on something highly significant was hap- 
pening to the priests doing the controlling and also to the groups 
being controlled. 

Each priest directed all his efforts toward controlling a group of 
people with words. Both the size of the group and the extent of his 
control over it was the measure of his power. He felt the group to 
be an instrument he could use; it was much more deadly than a 
single spear or sword; it was a multitude of word-controlled spears. 


After awhile it seemed to be an extension of his own body. 

The controlled people also got mixed up in the same way. All of 
the ones being manipulated began to think of the group as being an 
extension of themselves. Like the priest, they also felt a sort of in- 
toxication by reason of being "part" of a group having more 
power than any one individiaul. 

This word-created condition caused the value of individuals to 
appear drastically reduced. Only groups seemed to have value. 

Groups competed with groups, not only in open conflict, but 
also by trying to demonstrate which had the most powerful god. 
The so-called offenders or "enemies" of a specific god often died 
in the night from mysterious causes. Skeptical observers began to 
recognize that, not only was some ordinary human telling the group 
the "will" of the group-god, some ordinary humans were doing the 
killing of enemies in the night to carry out the actions "willed" by 
their group-god. These sneaky night killings, designed to create 
awe, became highly suspect. 

Some potential group leaders decided to bring killings for the 
"will" of their gods into the open; these I will call "kings." Kings, 
who were obviously ordinary humans, began to take control of 
already word-conditioned people by proclaiming, or getting the 
priest to proclaim, that they were chosen to do so by the "will" of 
the people's god. The standing orders, called "laws," given by 
these kings who were obviously ordinary humans, had the 
"authority" of the god because the word controlled people had ac- 
cepted the idea that the king had been appointed by the group-god. 

* * * 

I suggest that we now pause and consider the question: What 
does "authority" as used above really mean? In the world of reality 
a parent controls a child, an adult may have power over another by 
reason of strength or strategic advantage, or a group may have 
power over an individual. The idea implied by "authority" triggers 
action in those who have been word-conditioned to set aside their 
own innate will and accept the word-control of someone in 
"authority." As I see it, "authority," implying the "right" of in- 
dividuals or groups to control or exercise power over others, has no 
meaning in the world of reality. I want to identify it as being highly 
suspect by always enclosing it in quotation marks. 

* * * 

When orders were obeyed because coming from someone having 
"authority," mass warfare between groups of word controlled peo- 
ple became the standard practice. If there was no apparent reason 
for a war, a reason was invented; the system was dependent on it; 


"authority" grew by the demonstration of "authority." Kings sent 
out armies that were already word-controlled to force word-control 
on others, and the leaders of such armies often became the kings of 
those defeated in battle. Since these kings did not claim to get their 
"authority" to rule directly from the group-god, but from the other 
king, the people soon became so accustomed to word-control that 
they readily accepted any designated "authority." 

In most of the densely populated areas, the people not only came 
to accept such control, they came to expect it. They came to want 
it. They had become dependent on it. They could make no deci- 
sions nor do anything unless directed by an "authority." 

Great masses of such people, who were almost completely 
deprived of individual will by generations of word control became a 
burden to their controllers. Kings, who were busy leading armies, 
then gave "authority" to make "laws" — some orders from the 
"authority" — to an assistant, or to a group of assistants. 
"Governments" — a complex of law-making and law-enforcing 
groups claiming "authority" that no longer needed to be traced 
back to a group-god — became entirely possible. The people had 
become accustomed to look to an "authority" to make decisions 
for them, and had come to accept any "authority" that was not 
challenged by some other "authority." "Authorities" competed 
with "authorities" for group control. Individuals were lost in the 


Group power that has no respect for individuals, because in- 
dividuals can be pushed around by word-controlled groups, has 
now pushed word-control on everyone in the world. Now competi- 
tion for control of the groups is so intense that it allows no time for 
considering what to do with the group under control; getting the 
control has just become a game; the game is the dominant factor in 
human life. Even the remotest Eskimo has been made to submit to 
"laws" of groups he has never seen, and has been made dependent 
on group-produced-products for basic survival. Gradually most 
hold-outs accept the game as "the way things are," even though by 
doing this they lose their essential being in direct relation to the 

This essential being of an individual in direct relation to the 
universe I will call "soul." Some who submit to group control are 
well aware that by so doing they are giving up their souls. Others 
have become such total zombis — the walking dead, subject to con- 
trol by a will outside themselves — that they are conscious of 


nothing but the game that dominates all else on this fork of the road; 
they are no longer aware that anything "counts" if it is outside the 
human game. All have lost their souls as individuals. 

Such excessive group dominance of individuals is now rapidly 
removing humans from the advance echelon of evolution. So that we 
can discuss this as a present day problem, the simplified picture needs 
to be filled in with some specific details. 


The Eskimos and American Indians have followed their original way 
of life recently enough to give well-known evidence that word control is 
not something they accepted voluntarily. They resisted it, but lacked full 
knowledge of what they were resisting. The early northern Europeans, 
however, had been close enough to groups fighting over gods and 
governments to have stories about word-control that warned against it. 
They viewed all groups-of-people-acting-as-a-unit as all equally 
unreasonable. All such groups seemed ridiculous to them. All these 
groups were looked upon as an offense against human intelligence, 
whether based on the "authority" of a stone image, a spirit god, a king, 
or a group of law makers. 

Such groups are usually called "nation-states" or "bodies politic" in 
current language. The early northern Europeans, who had made the 
decision to retain their individual sovereignty, talked of them as 
monstrous organisms. Sometimes they called such a group a "giant" 
because the group acted like one single enormous person. Sometimes 
they called it a snake or serpent because the group organism moved in a 
sneaky fashion and was poisonous. Dragon was the common term for 
"body politic." Dragon was an unreal, animal-like idea-creation 
obviously invented for only one purpose — to designate the 
indescribable group-monster. When and where the dragon symbol was 
invented would be a wild conjecture. 

Dragon, snake or serpent, as symbols for a group of word-controlled 
people acting as a single organism, were used throughout much of the 
world long before written words. One of the earliest stories recorded in 
picture language — in Babylon before the Bible was written — tells of 
two lovers living happily in a nature garden, until a serpent tempted 
them away from their ideal existence. 

This story was copied in the Bible and that version, where the natural 
place was called the Garden of Eden and the lovers were 


called Adam and Eve, is widely known. However, the Bible version 
made a change in the original story that blinded readers to the meaning 
of the serpent: It presented Adam and Eve as the first and only people in 
the world. That kept anyone reading the Biblical version from 
recognizing that serpent was the symbol for a typical group of word- 
controlled people acting as if it were a single organism. 

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Able. 
Cain killed Able and then went to the "east of Eden" and found himself 
a wife. This, of course, indicated that there had to be some other people 
in the world. But the inconsistency is unsually accepted without 
question by those who accept the Bible as interpreted by priests, or 
simply ignore such inconsistencies as requiring religious or scholarly 
research that they have no inclination to make. 

I have gone into this detail about a specific Biblical story because I 
am going to make extensive reference to the Bible in the course of this 
work. That statement will doubtless alert some to appraise what I say 
from their scholarly perspective, while others will tend to react by 
turning down their level of attention, as they do at the approach of 
tense-eyed, door-bell-ringers gripping a book and presenting a 
pamphlet. Out of respect for diverse readers I now feel obligated to state 
"where I'm coming from." I am on the other fork in the road. 

My perspective for looking at present day humans and my own 
approach to the Bible does not fit any pigeon hole that is familiar to me 
and, therefore, cannot be briefly stated. I think of it as being fairly close 
to the perspective that Eskimos, American Indians, and northern 
Europeans might have had twenty-five hundred years ago — before 
they were "civilized." 

I intend mixing what I have to say about the Bible with some things I 
want to say about the early northern Europeans, who were my ancestors 
and doubtless the ancestors of many of my readers. So, before 
approaching the Bible, and approaching that event so significant that 
our calendar dates from it, the event of Jesus, I am going to tell "where 
I'm coming from" by presenting my view of the northern European 
thought pattern as it was about five centuries before Christ. 


Very little is actually known about the early northern Europeans. For 
over a thousand years, deliberate efforts were made to erase 


their thought patterns and way of life from all memory. The American 
Indians and Eskimos, as they were before they were "civilized," seem to 
be fairly close to the picture most people have of the "pre-civilized" 
northern Europeans. However, the dating of artifacts by radio carbon 
combined with growth rings of bristlecone pines indicates that our 
European ancestors had full knowledge of what was called 
"civilization," perhaps even earlier than the Egyptians and others who 
left written words. What is known of their word stories indicates that 
they did not deal with "civilization" as a conglomerate; they dealt with 
the groupism problem. 

The extant fragments of these stories, once considered highly 
significant, indicate that, unlike the Indians and Eskimos, the northern 
Europeans were well aware of the group-control practices of other 
peoples — and had consciously rejected them in favor of individual 
sovereignty. All the mutilated fragments told about the importance of 
keeping away from a dragon, or destroying any dragon that encroached 
on them. 

The preserved comments about the early northern Europeans by 
outsiders who were not deliberately trying to twist the record — 
because they wanted to denounce individual sovereignty — are very 
scant. Julius Caesar, who wrote within the first century B.C., and 
Tacitus, who wrote within the first century A.D., give most of the first- 
hand information now available. 

Caesar was a leader of armies and made the kind of report that 
interested people engaged in mass warfare. He told about the attitude of 
the northern Europeans toward the usual group-gods and about the 
effectiveness of their military organization. He said that the people of 
northern Europe, who had been least influenced by the rest of the world, 
respected only visible objects with obviously beneficial effects, such as 
the sun, the moon, the fire, et cetera. Caesar, himself, thought of such 
things as "gods" and implied that the northern Europeans so considered 
them when he said that the most isolated people, who he called 
Germans, "had not even heard of any other gods." However he also 
said, "they have no druids (priests) to lead them in matters of religion." 

Putting together the writings of Caesar and Tacitus, we get this 
picture of the people's behavior: They consciously rejected the idea of 
"owning" land and consciously rejected the use of money. They had 
strong morals about when and how to fight but had no tight "group- 
power" control of individuals. Although custom considered some 
behavior honorable and other behavior dishonorable, individuals were 
free to fight and even kill on their own decisions. 


They mated and reared children with the same individual freedom. 
Men and women had high respect for each other, considered in- 
dividual faithfulness to a mate extremely important, and con- 
sidered it highly undesirable to have sexual relations before fully 
matured — Caesar says at least twenty years old for the men. 

As a paleontologist tries to make a picture of a prehistoric animal 
from bone fragments, I take available information and try to make 
a picture of a once living people and of their thought patterns from 
the fragments. That picture is of a people close to the realities of 
nature, where each was free to form his own religion. 

Because the thought pattern, or religion, that was most common 
among these people was mutilated, so that it could be discarded as 
barbaric, there is nothing in clear word histories about their deepest 
thoughts. But similarities of language indicate that some of them 
had been intermixed with the people of India, Greece, Persia, and 
Italy many centuries before Christ. There are fairly good records of 
the religions in these places, particularly India and Greece, after 
other religions had been mixed with the same religion that con- 
tinued in the original form among the early northern Europeans. 
From observing what factors are common, and what are different, 
in these religions, the consciously chosen direction of the pre- 
history northern Europeans can be guessed at pretty accurately. 
However detailed documentation for such guesses would add 
nothing to the living picture I want to draw. I want to emphasize 
the sharp contrast between the kind of people who think and act for 
themselves and word controlled groups acting as if the group, not 
the individuals within the group, should be viewed as the significant 
unit. Religion sets direction. 

Lacking dependable "historical facts" to back up my own 
guesses about the basic religion of the early northern Europeans, I 
am going to quote from Melvin Gorham's The Ring Cycle, which is 
a creative interpretation of Richard Wagner's Ring operas. Both 
Wagner and Gorham were writing fictional works based on 
fragments of mythology. This picture is intended to indicate the in- 
tellectual or religious direction of a people who have chosen in- 

In currently understandable form, Gorham is retelling the story 
dealing with what I see as the most significant problem facing the 
human species: Individuals relating to the natural world versus in- 
dividuals relating to a group semi-organism, or serpent. Enough 
fragmentary records exist to show that many others have con- 
sidered this to be the most significant human problem. The basic 
story was already a classic before the Bible was written. I previously 


mentioned the Babylonian version. In the version now presented, the 
names Brunnhilde and Siegfried are given to the woman and man 
threatened by the serpent, or dragon. I see this version as describing the 
thoughts and attitudes of the pre-history northern Europeans. It has the 
added advantage that — being set in the twenty-first century — it needs 
no modification to make it understandable in current thought patterns. 

Gorham says that Brunnhilde has this view of the universe and 

When the creative intelligence was one, and the whole universe 
that was its thoughts had continued as a great galaxy of swirling 
stars for countless aeons, then the intelligence sought a new 
perspective for enjoying its past creations. 

Selecting an almost infinitesimally small speck on a long 
forgotten planet, circling a minor star, the aboriginal intelligence 
chose to look at the whole from this utterly small perspective. 
Leaving all past creations to continue as inertia, it identified with the 
speck and formed it into a cell wall, wherein the continuing will of 
all intelligence moved as life. 

The new living cell divided its self into two cells and found joy in 
the communion between life and life. Dividing into a greater number 
of cells increased the joy of the new creative venture even more. 

These cells absorbed the warmth from the star that was their sun; 
they drank the dew; they breathed the air; they swam in the liquid; 
they touched, felt, and explored the solids; they selected bits of the 
universe, and brought these bits into the new small spheres which 
were their living beings. They communicated with each other and 
perceived with joy their diversities as an adventure in infinite 

After describing the development of multicellular organisms, the 
story goes on to talk about sex, the two lovers, and the serpent: 


Countless aeons of experiencing these organic thought-realities, 
caused the creative intelligence within some organisms to perceive 
that life afforded two forms of joy: One came from creation by 
destroying and reworking what existed. The other joy was in 
perception of what already existed while cherishing its continued 


Wanting to maintain balance between these two forms of joy, the 
creative intelligence within some cell-organisms evolved into two 
different sexes — one for the directional emphasis of each form of joy. 
One sex emphasized continuity of the existing; the other sex 
emphasized destruction of the existing in favor of a new creation; the 
union of the two became a condition necessary to any living creation of 

Because the individual of one sex did not absorb an individual of the 
other, as happens in asexual enjoyment of other asexual life, a built-in 
limitation was needed. Death, as a corollary to birth, was therefore 
designed into all sexual entities as an essential condition of sexuality. 

Sex-feeling for another living organism evolved into such full 
perception of the other as an entity outside oneself — that it sometimes 
became love. The sexually-stimulated perception of an entity other than 
self also sometimes created love's corollary — a will to destroy when 
absorption was not the motivating impulse. Both were of equal value to 
the creative intelligence as a totality. 


Distilled to its utmost purity by her mother, the essence of this 
perspective was passed on to Brunnhilde. In her own individual joy- 
oriented thought world, unaffected by other influences, she had spent 
her entire life in exile. Her physical world was the once-ideally- 
designed-but-now-gone-wild garden surrounding the ruin of the old 
castle. Into this Gottingarten — into her world of thought and her world 
of physical reality she now brought Siegfried. 

Never could two lovers have found themselves in a paradise more 
suited to their love's total fulfillment. 


Brunnhilde showed Siegfried the warehouse of food long ago 
provided for a whole army under siege — mountains of food packed in 
preserving containers and sufficient to feed a few individuals for many 
life times. She showed him all the old fruit trees that her mother had 
brought back to bountiful production and she, herself, had come to care 
for as for dear friends. She showed him the garden of all other good 
things she had learned to grow. She showed him her favorite lookout 
cliffs and secluded coves. Also she showed him all her favorite places 
for looking 


out upon the vast unpopulated world surrounding her mountain home 
from the various rooms and terraces of the old castle. 

She enjoyed showing and he enjoyed seeing the world in which she 
had spent her life. But their greatest joy was in each other, as made 
eternally diverse by their relation to the physical realities she had known 
in their most elemental simplicity. They lay with the warm earth 
pressing against their backs, felt the warm sun flow down upon them, 
watched while clouds changed patterns against the blue infinity of sky, 
breathed the fragrance of growing things, and listened to the myriad 
sounds of insects, birds, and animals that were undomesticated but 
unafraid. They made ripples in still waters with their toes. They laughed 
and yelled their joy under the great force of roaring falls and the 
deafening sound of water falling over rocks and over themselves. They 
ran and climbed and jumped, and found delight in the agility and 
movements of each others bodies. They enjoyed pushing their climbs to 
utter exhaustion, so that they panted hungrily for air and breathed in 
great gasps. They delighted in times of great thirst and the satisfaction 
of then drinking cooling water; they delighted in famishing hunger and 
the deliciousness of food. They relished the warmth and cozy 
communion of a campfire and were happy with the cold nights that 
added to its joy. They smiled happily, lifted their faces and opened their 
mouths to the sweetness of warm summer rain; they laughed defiantly 
into the drenching heavy rain blown by fierce gusts of wind mixed with 
driving hail. They enjoyed watching a storm through the castle windows 
when they were dry, cozy and warm. The whole of their physical reality 
was an unblemished delight. 


Only those things which they carried within them and brought forth 
through words were discordant, puzzling, and could not be accepted as 
realities always giving joy. 

Siegfried had not sought the Ring but it was his because he had 
destroyed FAFNER. Now he remembered that the eyes of the whole 
world were focused on him and by reason of this the serpent crept into 
paradise. He had been bathed in words, in the very blood of the dragon, 
had felt their searing sting and developed almost full protection from the 
word-perpetuated dragon-madness. But, because of his contact with the 
Ring, the rumor of a kingdom with a word-transmitted philosophy of 
world brotherhood now tempted him to leave the paradise-like garden. 



The Bible is the most widely distributed book in existence and has 
had an enormous influence on the entire world for two thousand years. 
Most versions are divided into two parts, known as the "Old 
Testament," which is primarily the history of people who call 
themselves Jews, and the "New Testament," which is primarily the story 
of Jesus. The Old Testament was probably written between the years 
1200 BC and 100 BC; the new Testament between 50 AD and 120 AD, 
and revised about 300 AD. AH parts have been repeatedly modified and 
very few fragments of the actual early writings still exist. 

There is no doubt that Jesus actually lived. The most reliable records 
say that he was born about 5 years before the calendar supposed to 
count from his birth is actually counted. He was crucified about 30 AD. 

There are more people in the world who call themselves Christians — 
followers of Christ's teachings — than those organized into any other 
religion. But the Christians are divided into more than 500 different 
groups depending on what they think the Bible says and means. There 
are about fifteen million people scattered over the world who call 
themselves Jews. However many of them do not believe that the Jewish 
god, Jahweh, actually exists or ever did exist, and they all differ 
strongly with the Christians about what the Bible is really saying, and 
what the symbols in it mean. 

Since the Bible is available everywhere in printed words, all this 
difference of opinion among people professing these various religions 
indicates that it is hardly more possible to tell the "factual history" of 
those whose history has been put into words than it is to tell about those 
who have no written history. 


It is my opinion that reality cannot be captured in words — neither 
my words nor the words of anyone else. With such a view I need to 
explain exactly what I am writing and why. My focus is on the methods 
used by word controlled groups to destroy most individuals who resist 
and my primary use of "facts" is to illustrate such methods. The 
illustrations could be totally fictitious and still serve the purpose. 
However history is a convenient crutch to the imagination, and there is 
also a bonus to be gained from injecting a few fragments accepted as 
"factual" history. Accepted reference points can serve as a common 
language when we turn to the specific real problem that faces the human 
species here and now. 


I want to show that the direction of the serpent, or body politic, which 
only exists in the minds of word controlled groups — but causes them 
to act as it if were real — opposes (1) the direction pointed out by Jesus, 
and also opposes (2) the direction set by three billion years of life before 
humans came on the scene. Respect for the total universe requires that 
we look with more understanding at non-human life than we usually do. 
Life has existed on earth for 3,000 million years, mammals for more 
than 65 million, humans for perhaps 3 million, and the word history of 
humans for about l/100th of 1 million. Some think that human group- 
methods have made obsolete the ways that have been working 
successfully for 300,000 times as long as human history. Others 
disagree. I am one of those who disagrees that groupism should replace 

I want to accent the difference between the direction of a people who 
are sovereign individuals and a people who are fully committed to a 
cohesive group, and are acting as if they were mere "parts" of a single 
organism. Fragmentary evidence indicates that the people of northern 
Europe, up to about 200 BC, had a fully conscious commitment to 
individual sovereignty. Heavily documented evidence, much of it in the 
Bible, shows that the Jews committed themselves to act as a cohesive 
group not later than about 1250 BC. Peoples are never fully 
homogeneous — that is, all individuals in a group do not think and act 
exactly alike — so prevailing tendencies will be accented to show the 
significant differences in direction. 

The widening aura of influence coming from the opposing directions 
taken by the people of northern Europe and the Jews, what is commonly 
called "spread of culture," came into conflict on a world wide scale 
before the flesh and blood people actually came into contact with each 
other. The opposition of ideas and ways of life were brought to a sharp 
focus in the person of Jesus. The meeting of these two opposing 
directions, turning on the teachings of Jesus as a whirlwind turns on the 
"eye" of a storm, created an ideological maelstrom that now affects the 
human populations of the whole world. 

Similar meetings and conflicts between the directions taken by 
individual sovereigns and those taken by word controlled groups are 
multitude. I have mentioned the Babylonian story of an individual man 
and woman whose paradise was upset by the serpent — serpent 
symbolizing a word controlled group, considered as a type. As long as 
there have been such groups that story has been repeated with various 
symbols, both on an individual basis and on a group basis. Individuals 
have been forcefully pushed out of their small, personal natural 
paradises by word controlled groups; and 


individual-respecting groups — of substantial size — have been 
destroyed or absorbed by word controlled groups no more powerful 
than themselves. The use of words to trigger group force is the focus of 
my attention. Here, I am trying to retell the same story that is older than 
the Bible — retell it on a world wide scale that will lead up to the 
present day problem of present day humans. Instead of considering a 
single man and woman confronting a talking serpent, I will consider a 
whole people and their contact with serpents or dragons. Making a story 
of such magnitude sharply reveal its basic elements requires focusing on 
historical details only when they significantly affect the world here and 


Serpent or dragon, as an image for a group of word-controlled- 
people-acting-as-a-single-organism, was widely used even before any 
word histories now available but not always did the image carry an 
unfavorable connotation. Only the northern Europeans seem to have 
had a conscious commitment never to create such a semi-organism 
among themselves — and to destroy any that tried to encroach on them. 
Most people thought only of opposing an existing serpent, that seemed 
undesirable, with a newly created replacement that they hoped would be 
better. I use serpent here instead of the present terms "nation-state" or 
"body politic" because it is the language used in the Bible from which 
this description will be taken. 

People who consciously practice word control write word histories 
and a portion of the "Old Testament" is one of these. The Biblical story 
of a people who called themselves Jews is fully detailed and well- 
known. It then does not have to be built up from fragments; we only 
need to focus on its basic factors. I use it as an example to show how 
people, who have known life only as a word controlled group, almost 
always recreate, of themselves, the same kind of serpent that they see as 
being undesirable when created by others. 

Although the story is clear, well-known, and easily expressed in 
brief, simple language, I will occasionally use quotations so as to make 
it easy to verify that my interpretation and selective use of brief 
passages is in context. 

The Jews are usually spoken of as having been slaves of the 
Egyptians but they were not slaves as the blacks were slaves in America 
— individuals under control of individuals. It was only as a group of 
people, whose group organization had been disrupted, that they were 
controlled by the Egyptians. The Egyptians were a 


fully organized group — or, in the language of the time, the Egyptians 
formed a full fledged serpent. The Jews were their slaves only as a 
people accustomed to word control speak of themselves as slaves when 
they no longer have their own serpent. Individual Jews actually had 
individual slaves themselves. The Jews had been in Egypt over four 
hundred years and had become trusted supervisors in charge of all slave 

Moses, who was a Jew, had been raised among the Egyptian rulers. 
He killed an Egyptian and ran away because he thought the Egyptians 
would discover what he had done. Exodus 2:12. Apparently the Jews 
knew about it but had not informed on him because they considered him 
as one of their own. Ex. 2: 14. 

Moses seems to have done a lot of thinking about that fact in the 
years that followed. At the age of forty, he returned with a plan for 
getting the entire Jewish population to make themselves into a semi- 
organism that would be independent of the Egyptian serpent. 

Moses had the temperament of a strategy planner; his brother, Aaron, 
who had remained in Egypt, was a glib talker; together they formed an 
effective beginning for building word control. Chapter 4, verse 16 of 
Exodus says of Aaron in relation to Moses: "he shall be thy spokesman 
unto the people; and he shall be ... to thee instead of a mouth, and thou 
shall be to him instead of a God." 

The chief word controller of the Egyptians was called a Pharaoh and, 
at that time and place, the power of a group was spoken of as the power 
of the group's god. Inasmuch as the Jews had accepted Egyptian 
"authority" for over four hundred years, the Pharaoh had ceased to think 
of them as a separate power. He was in for a surprise. 

Approaching the Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron asked that the Jews be 
allowed to go away into the wilderness to worship their god, which they 
said was different from that of the Egyptians. The Pharaoh not only 
denied the requested permission but, presumably considering the 
request to be a gross impertinence, he sought to discipline the Jews. He 
increased their work by requiring them to gather their own straw, used 
in making bricks, without reducing the quota of bricks required of them. 

As might be expected, the Jews, themselves, then turned against 
Moses. However, since he was aware that they all knew he had killed an 
Egyptian and had not squealed, he placed high value on their feeling of 
group solidarity. It was a big factor in his strategic plans. He had been 
raised among the royalty; he had access to the Pharaoh; Aaron, the glib 
talker, already thought he was a god; the Jews had strong group feeling 
— so accomplishing his objective 


was only a matter of putting the persuasive factors together in the most 
effective way. 

The next confrontation between Moses, as a potential group leader, 
and the Pharoah, as a leader already holding power, appears impressive 
even without giving it the magic-like interpretation which editions of 
the Bible written long after the event put on it. There is no need to 
assume that magic was involved. Full clarity regarding what was being 
said only requires recognition of the symbols for abstract ideas that 
were in use at the time. 

Staff, or rod, as used by peaceful shepherds, was a symbol of peace. 
Serpent, of course, was the symbol for a group acting as a cohesive unit. 

Obeying instructions from Moses, Aaron used his eloquence to 
convince the Pharaoh that the Jews were already a cohesive unit and, as 
such, were a power to be reckoned with. He recited the extent to which 
the Egyptians were dependent on them, then told the Pharaoh what the 
Jews, acting together, could do if he refused their demands. 

The Pharaoh was sufficiently impressed to call in his advisors and 
ask them to lay before Moses and Aaron what countermoves the 
Egyptians would take — that is, the Pharaoh wanted the advisors to 
make Moses and Aaron understand how the Egyptians would retaliate if 
the Jews carried out their threats. This was a battle of words. 

Even after the language of the time was reinterpreted by translators 
adding a touch of magic, it is easy to understand what happened. As 
related in the Bible, Aaron, the fast talker, always stayed one jump 
ahead of the Egyptians. Ex. 7:10-12 says: "Aaron cast down his rod 
before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then 
Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians 
of Egypt, they also did in the same manner with their enchantments. For 
they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but 
Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods." 

Aaron apparently could out talk the advisors of the Pharaoh. But it 
was all talk. The Pharaoh was not impressed with the Jews as a power. 
However, this was only round one. 

Moses, raised among Egyptian royalty, knew to what extent the 
Egyptians interpreted all unexplained happenings as the acts of gods. 
According to Ex. 7:1, Moses heard his own god speak to him saying, "I 
have made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy 
prophet." Aaron was already willing to act as if Moses were a god, and 
he was a man with a gift for words. Moses 


was a shrewd and careful planner. 

The second confrontation of Moses and Aaron with the Pharaoh 
presumably was well-timed to coincide with a red tide — caused by a 
marine worm of flagellate protozoa that turns the water red and kills the 
fish. Such a tide was approaching in the river. Moses and Aaron, 
making themselves conspicuous before the Pharaoh, stretched out their 
rods over the river as if they were magic wands. They told the Pharaoh, 
"The LORD God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, let my 
people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; and, behold, 
hitherto thou wouldest not hear. ... I will smite with the rod that is in 
mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be 
turned to blood. And the fish that are in the river shall die, and the river 
shall stink." Ex. 7:16-18. 

It happened: The river became red, the fish died and the river did 
stink. However it did not fully persuade the Pharaoh that he needed to 
make any concessions to the Jews. 

But apparently this second confrontation — that brought no 
disciplinary action against them — impressed the Jews that Moses had 
been pretty clever. They now apparently thought that he might be a 
leader who could get some advantages for them. They were ready to 
listen to him — maybe even cooperate a little — if they could do so 
without sticking their necks out. 

That was all Moses needed. They were trusties in charge of all the 
other "slaves" of the Egyptians, running not only the brickworks but all 
the farming, cattle tending, household work, cooking, serving — 

After seven days, in which the Jews had time to make some 
preparations, Moses told the Pharaoh that if he refused to let the Jews 
go into the wilderness for a three day religious rite that frogs would 
overrun Egypt, would be in the beds, be in the bread troughs — 

It happened. The Pharaoh began to talk concessions. But as soon as 
the frogs were gone, he apparently thought the problem had been 

Looking at the whole story after it is all over, we can see that 
something significant was happening. Without showing their in- 
volvement openly, the Jews as a group were gradually becoming in- 
volved in cohesive action. A plague of lice, and then a plague of flies 
followed the plague of frogs at predicted times. 

Then Moses raised the ante — and the Jews went along with the 
increased involvement. Moses made another prediction, and right on 
schedule, the cattle of the Egyptians died but not the cattle of the Jews. 


Then, as predicted, an epidemic of boils spread about. There was 
also a hail storm and a swarm of locusts for which Moses took 
credit. He now had the Jews in such full involvement and so pleas- 
ed with the way things were going that he could raise the ante still 
further. He had a big plan. 

The Pharaoh had at last been impressed that the Jews were a 
cohesive group and as such constituted a group-power to be 
recognized. He accepted the original demands Moses had made and 
agreed that the Jews could all go out in the wilderness for three 
days and perform their religious ceremonies. But Moses apparently 
thought it better strategy to be more certain that all the Jews were 
behind him before he made his big move. Or maybe he just needed 
time to make preparations. In any event he delayed by making fur- 
ther demands. He insisted that they be allowed to take all their cat- 
tle with them. 

That was too much. The Pharaoh refused further negotiations. 
He ordered Moses out of his sight, saying that if he ever saw him 
again he would be executed. 

Moses, of course, could see that the time had come for an all-or- 
nothing move that would result in total involvement of the Jews or 
total failure. He felt confident. He could see that the non-Jewish 
servants, and the Egyptian people in general, had been impressed 
"and the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt." Ex. 

Chapters 11, 12 and 13 of Exodus tell the story of Moses' big 
move in this way: 

"The LORD said unto Moses... Speak now in the ears of the 
people, and let every man borrow of his neighbor, and every 
woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. ... And 
the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so 
that they lent unto them such things as they required; and they 
spoiled the Egyptians." 

As part of the same all-out plan Moses told the Jews, "Thus 
saith the LORD. About midnight will I go out into the midst of 
Egypt; and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the 
firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the 
firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill and all the 
firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the 
land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any 
more. But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move 
his tongue, against man or beast; ... In the tenth day of this month 
take every man ... a lamb into his house. ... And ye shall keep it up 
until the fourteenth dav of the same month: and the whole 


assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts, 
and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 
... And thus shall ye eat it: with your loin girded, your shoes on 
your feet, and staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is 
the LORD'S passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt 
this night and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both 
man and beast." 

"And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and 
all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was 
not a house where there was not one dead. And he called for Moses 
and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from 
among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go serve 
the LORD, as ye have said. Also take your flocks and your herds , 
as ye have said, and begone. ... And the children of Israel 
journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand 
on foot, that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude 
went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cat- 

As usually happens in the word-control of a group, the revolu- 
tion of the Jews against the existing serpent came first. They were 
just a cohesive group, not yet organized into a body politic, or, in 
the language of that day, they were not yet a serpent or dragon. But 
they had acted together and that was every individual's commit- 
ment to cohesiveness. The "Feast of the Passover" had been 
established and that would become the prototype of their future ac- 

They got together and agreed on how they would put the reality 
into words. Exodus 13, verses 14-15, tells how they decided to tell 
the story: "And it shall be, when thy son asketh thee in time to 
come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By 
strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the 
house of bondage. And it came to pass when Pharaoh would hardly 
let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, 
both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast; therefore I 
sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but 
all the firstborn of my children I redeem. " 

Their actions against the Egyptians and the way they were going 
to tell the story in the future would, of course, tend to bind them 
together. But, as is the usual case, they had been too involved in 
their revolution against what seemed undesirable in the word- 
control, or laws, already imposed on them to think about what 
would be a desirable way of life. 


There is no indication that they ever considered the possible 
desirability of individual freedom. There seemed to be only the 
question of what kind of word-control they should adopt for 
themselves as purportedly coming from what kind of god. 

They wanted a god that would bind the group into a unit. Quickly 
they made a golden calf, by pooling and melting up into one unit 
the jewels they had "borrowed" from the Egyptians, and called it 
the god that had brought them out of Egypt. 

They did this while Moses went up on a mountain for forty days 
and came down with Ten Commandments on stone tablets, which 
he presented to them as coining from the god that had brought 
them out of Egypt. The Commandments also went in the direction 
of insuring group unity. The first five ordered the Jews to honor 
that invisible god that had brought them out of Egypt and to honor 
their parents. The next five were, thou shalt not: 6. Kill. 7. Commit 
adultery. 8. Steal. 9. Bear false witness against thy neighbor. 10 
Covet anything that is thy neighbors. 

The Commandments set forth no marriage laws to clarify what 
was meant by "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Neither did they 
set forth any property laws to clarify what was meant by "Thou 
shalt not steal" or "covet." Marriage and property laws vary widely 
throughout the world and do not exist at all where people have not 
been word conditioned. So a thoughtful person, reading the Bible, 
would, of course, wonder whether the Commandments referred to 
the laws of the Egyptians or some unspecified laws that the Jews 
might have known prior to their four hundred years under 
Egyptian law. In any case one might wonder what marriage and 
property laws they were being commanded not to break by not 
"committing adultery" and not taking or coveting their neighbor's 
"property" — that is, one might wonder what "civil" laws — 
made by what "government" — were being tacitly "approved" by 
the author of the Commandments. 

None of the Commandments could have any meaning to anyone 
who was not already word conditioned except one: "Thou shalt not 
kill." And that one shows up glaringly. It becomes the most ques- 
tionable of all. Moses immediately ordered them to violate it. 

Some were willing to accept the laws on the stone tablets as com- 
ing from the god who had brought them out of Egypt. Others were 
not. The way Moses handled the situation illustrates the usual 
method of serpent makers. 

According to Exodus 32:26-28, Moses said, "Who is on the 
LORD'S side? ... And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves 
together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD 


God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out 
from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, 
and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the 
children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of 
the people that day about three thousand men." 

The next maneuver in molding the Jews into a group-acting-as-a- 
single-unit is not presented in language quite as clear to present day 
readers as the one just recited but, obviously, it is the same sort of 
action. The next one refers to the competition between serpent makers 
and the tendency of the controlled to want to do the controlling. 

According to Numbers 21:5-6, "the people spake against God, and 
against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us out of Egypt, to die in the 
wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; ... and the 
LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; 
and much people of Israel died." Then Moses came up with his own 
serpent, held it up before the people, and those that looked on the 
serpent that Moses held up lived. 

That is the way of every semi-organism of word controlled people as 
long as there has been a word history. They form serpents, dragons, 
nations, bodies politic — or whatever the word-controlling-semi- 
organism is called. Individual flesh and blood humans die if they will 
not commit themselves to be "parts" of the word-created serpent of 
those around them, or if they advocate something different from what is 
currently held up by the leader already having word control over the 


It is awkward not to have a single term running through all history for 
what is now called "nation-state" or "body politic." The ancient term 
dragon seems to have had more use on a worldwide basis than serpent. 
In China a picture of a dragon with four toes was a "common noun" for 
what is usually called serpent in the language of the Bible; a dragon 
with five toes was a "proper noun" for the ruling "body politic" of 
China. The "proper noun" Japanese dragon had three toes; the Persian 
dragon had a cloven hoof, et cetera. The Bible most often uses the word 
"serpent" instead of "dragon" but in Chapter 12 of Revelations both 
terms are used repeatedly and inter-changeably to designate the same 
thing that is currently called "body politic." 

It is awkward not to have a single term to designate a word- 
controlling-semi -organism, but an even bigger problem is the varia- 


tion in concept. The concept of the fictitious entity used in word 
control varies in time and place. That, of course, is the trouble with 
words that point to no perceivable reality. They have fuzzy or slip- 
pery meanings and cause much confusion. Reality is the language 
of the universal creative intelligence. When humans create words 
that do not refer to a perceivable reality, there is likely to be confu- 
sion between the man-conceived fictional entity and something 
clearly perceived which is real. 

In America, the people from northern Europe were pushing out 
the native Indians and forming a body politic, or serpent, at the 
same time they were taking possession of raw land. Because land 
was their major interest at that time, they assumed that the essence 
of a body politic was simply the cooperative effort of individuals 
for the purpose of holding and defending peaceful possession of 
the land. Edward Everett Hale's Man Without a Country made its 
basic emotional appeal with a poem containing these words, 
"Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself has 
said, 'This is my own, my native land.' " 

Slowly Americans are now awakening to the fact that a nation- 
state, body politic, or whatever the serpent is currently called is not 
simply "my own, my native land." 

The history of the Jews gives a clear picture of the serpent — or 
body politic. Looking at their history, we can see that it is any fic- 
tional thing that word controlled individuals are conditioned to 
think of as a "whole" and conditioned to think of their individual 
beings as its "parts." Land had nothing to do with the formation 
of the Jewish serpent. Moses began to involve the Jews so that all 
must act as if they were parts of a single unit. Cohesive group ac- 
tion demonstrated that, as a potential serpent, the group was 
already an invisible power, and that those who were not its "parts" 
had reasons to fear it. As soon as the embryo serpent had been 
developed a little further, it became a power which even those in- 
dividuals who were its "parts" had reason to fear. Group power 
exerted against individuals is the basis for establishing word con- 
trol, but word-expressed ideas, that override clear thought, are the 
necessary implements to perpetuate it. 

The idea-content of the word control exercised by serpent makers 
challenges the creative intelligence of the universe in determining 
good and evil. It denies the manifest morality of the natural world 
in which all natural development (progress, if such a word can have 
meaning) is made by mutant individuals demonstrating their mu- 
tant worth in relation to the total universe. The serpent makers ad- 
vocate the pseudo-morality that individuals should subordinate 


their individual reason and judgment to the "authority" of the group. 
The Jewish Bible provides the best example of the serpent for two 
reasons: One, it is widely distributed. Two, it clearly advocates the 
pseudo-morality of the serpent, and condemns individual-self-assertion 
as immoral. The Jews as a group never advocated a relationship of an 
individual to a god who cared anything about individuals. The only 
relationship they advocated was that of "a people" to a group-god that 
dealt with cohesive "peoples" or serpents. 

Since a serpent is a fictitious entity, there is, of course, nothing in the 
world of reality that identifies any individual with a particular serpent. 
Spies or saboteurs, who are committed to one serpent, but who pretend 
to be "part" of an enemy serpent are recognized as common. When 
discovered they are usually killed. On the other hand, one who is 
committed to one serpent may be killed by those who are committed to 
the same serpent — because there is no real way that anyone can prove 
he is fully committed "part" of something that has no reality. Those 
having "authority" decide who are "parts." 

An assumption that a serpent has reality because the land claimed in 
its name has reality is a common basis for confusion. Looking at Jewish 
history helps to clear up this confusion. During most of history the 
Jewish serpent has not been identified with any particular geographical 
area. As a result, those trying to clear up in their own minds just what is 
the nature of these semi-organisms, of which the Jewish serpent that has 
no geographical identity is one of the oldest, are likely to ask, "Are the 
Jews a separate race from other humans, or does their identity as Jews 
depend on their religion" } " 

Clearly it is neither race nor religion that makes of them a cohesive 
group acting for peculiarly Jewish interests. 

Biologists recognize seven fairly distinct "races" of early humans but 
the Jews are not a recognized race. Known records make it clear that 
those who called themselves Jews when they came out of Egypt have 
interbred with others to such an extent that their descendants cannot be 
identified by any physical characteristics. 

And, as to their belief in the "god who led them out of the land of 
Egypt," many who call themselves Jews are either atheists or agnostics. 

So they cannot be called Jews either because of race or because of 
religion. Jews are Jews because they voluntarily choose to identify with 
the Jewish serpent — even though at the same time they usually pretend 
to identify with some other one. 


Most present day Jews claim to be "parts" of two separate "wholes." 
Jews who are "United States citizens" have a divided allegiance 
between the ancient Jewish serpent and the United States. Jews have 
practiced this same sort of dual identity — simultaneously claiming to 
be "parts" of two separate "wholes" — for thousands of years and 
continue to follow the practice even though it often results in their 
persecution. Obviously they continue to play this double game because 
their three thousand years of Jewish tradition shows them that the 
Jewish serpent has repeatedly eaten up other serpents. The Feast of the 
Passover keeps fresh the methods that were successful in Egypt. The 
Jews then choose to be part of the Jewish serpent and to use the methods 
celebrated in the Passover Feast in their relations to other serpents. 

The unreality of the word-created-semi-organism can be most clearly 
seen by looking at those who, like the Jews, are purportedly "parts" or 
"citizens" of two such semi-organisms at the same time. On the other 
hand, the efficacy of word conditioning is shown by the persistence of 
the Nomadic Jewish Nation. The Nomadic Jewish Nation is given 
priority over all other nations in the actions of most Jews, even when 
many are agnostics or atheists, are biologically indistinguishable, and 
are committed to nothing but the pseudo-morality of groupism 
expressed simply as "we Jews" against all "non-Jews." 


The history of the Jews gives a concept-clarifying example of the 
history-old fictitious entities that have been called by various names and 
seen through varying concepts. It also provides another significant 
example. It provides a well-known example of what happens to 
individuals who choose not to be a "part" of a serpent to which those 
surrounding them are committed. 

About the time that Jesus lived, there was a drop-out from Jewish 
traditions, called John the Baptist, who was doing a curious thing. He 
was baptising other Jews in the River Jordan. Since that time, baptism 
has been practiced by Christians to whom it signifies burial of the 
sinful-old-self and resurrection of the new-self-born-again-as-a- 
Christian. However, John the Baptist was performing this ceremony 
before the ministry of Jesus and was baptising Jews who were not 
accepting an openly declared new religion. This raises a question. 

What did this baptism as practiced by John mean to the Jews? 
Ceremonial washing with water before a religious rite had long been a 
common practice and a symbolic washing away of sins is 


suggested by the Bible. However the question of what "sins" were 
being washed away calls for an answer. 

In our subconscious, we humans, have a memory of a great event 
_the time when we left the water to become land animals. This is a 
memory of choosing segregation from our own kind. At the time of 
John's curious practice, even as now, legal and social conditions were 
exerting pressure against segregated groups, and there was a great deal 
of evidence that all Jews at that time would have done well to abandon 
the Jewish serpent. The individual Jew's semi-articulate public 
announcement that he was abandoning Jewish separateness from all 
humanity, imposed on him as a "part" of the Jewish serpent, appears to 
be the most probable conscious or subconscious meaning of this re- 
immersion in water from which all life came. To the fully 
understanding it could well have meant even more than an 
abandonment of the separateness from other humans; it could have 
meant abandonment of separateness from all forms of life, 
abandonment of separateness from the whole natural world. Whatever 
may have been the meaning of the act, John readily baptised some Jews 
but, according to Matthew 3:7-9, he said to others, "O generation of 
vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring 
forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within 
yourselves, We have Abraham to our father." 

The "authorities" put him in prison, cut off his head and gave it to a 
dancing girl on a platter. But before that happened, Jesus came to him 
and John baptised Jesus. 

Jesus is the focal point bringing together the people committed to 
individual sovereignty and those committed to being "parts" of a semi- 
organism that has its imaginary existence entirely in words. A 
background for talking about Jesus comes from considering the mixing 
of those diametrically opposite ideas as upheld by different peoples. On 
one side the ideas were coming from a people who were close to nature, 
and were focusing on their relationships with universal reality. On the 
other side the ideas were coming from people of dense populations, 
who were focusing on the relationships of group to group or, in Biblical 
language, on the relationships of serpent to serpent. 

The cultural whirlpools, called "civilizations," caused by these 
mixings are recorded in extensive word histories. We will look briefly 
at one in India and one in Greece. From what is known of these two it is 
possible partially to confirm the previously presented thought pattern of 
the isolated early northern Europeans. We have already mentioned that 
our knowledge of such thought patterns 


was, in part, extrapolated from the known religions of early Greece and 

From the early religions of India we deduce the original perception of 
female and male characteristics as the northern Europeans saw those 
sexual characteristics. Because those pushing into India from the north 
found dense populations committed to group-gods, they tried to present 
their understanding of human female and male characteristics by 
fictionalizing them in a highly accented form as separate gods. They 
presented aboriginal creative intelligence as one god, called Brahma, 
who then became two. These were: Vishnu, the god who created by 
cherishing and nourishing what was selected, and Siva, the god who 
created by selective destruction. Presumably this fictional creation of 
gods was designed to isolate and look at observable human 
characteristics, even while making some concessions to the god- 
thought-patterns of the people who were native to India. The reasoning 
behind the method is easily understood. 

However, something happened to those who went into India, and 
confronted great masses of people committed to group-gods, that is 
more difficult to understand. They not only lost their joy in living and 
came to look upon life as a burden, they rationalized the rejection of 
joy. The religion of India, as it eventually developed, actually presumed 
to believe that all life was a mistake and the mistake required correction. 
Apparently this loss of joy came about because those bringing northern 
European ideas were vastly outnumbered by the dense populations 
already in the area, and were never able to reach full understanding with 
groups committed to the worship of group-gods. Instead, the invaders 
withdrew into themselves, meditated about the problem, found no joy in 
such existence, and, having a comprehensible idea of how the universe 
was created, turned their thoughts toward a method by which each in- 
dividual could be "uncreated." That is, they sought for a method of 
reversing the process of creation and returning to the oneness of the 
aboriginal creative intelligence. Their stated objective "Nirvana," means 
"blowing out, as of a candle." 

The basic difference between them and the northern Europeans was 
not primarily a difference of how they perceived the universe but simply 
a difference of attitude — of saying "no" or saying "yes" to life. Within 
the framework of accepted customs the northern Europeans could 
actively assert their individual sovereignty with pride and courage. 
Individual sovereignty was something they all recognized as fully 
intended by the creative intelligence of the universe. Their conviction 
that morality unquestionably backed the 


discrete self gave an emotional power to the individual will, which 
made "just living" into a greater joy than any serpent people could ever 
know. Although those who went into India never fully advocated 
serpent practices they lost their joy in "just living" when they accepted 

In Greece, the northern Europeans pushed in upon the native 
population and found the same sort of people as had been found in India 
— those committed to the worship of group-gods. These natives had the 
same prehistory conditioning which caused them to think each 
individual was "part" of a group; they had a "morality" built on word 
fiction that advocated group cohesiveness. However the result of the 
invasion into Greece was different from the result in India. The invaders 
did not withdraw to meditate on strategy — and then fall into an 
extended meditation aimed at becoming uncreated. As centuries passed 
they did not drown in the flood of word-conditioned people. In Greece, 
the invaders gained dominance over the native population. From the 
beginning they attempted to modify the basic nature of the serpent or 
dragon, to which the native people had come to look for orders. The 
natives, brainwashed with words since long before the dawn of history, 
had been conditioned to think that individual sovereignty was immoral. 
When the northern invaders killed their word-controllers, and did not 
replace the dissolved word-serpents with new serpents, the native 
people simply became slaves looking for a master. 

Instead of the sort of serpent or dragon that was known all over the 
world long before there was a written language, the Greeks tried to 
conceive a new sort of fictitious entity which they called a "state." The 
idea was for the "state" to get its synthesized "will" from pooling the 
will of those whose individual sovereignty was acknowledged. By 
recognizing that individual humans — not group-gods — made the 
laws, they sought to avoid a serpent's tyranny over its "parts." Hoping to 
avoid group-tyranny, they had open discussions as to what laws should 
be made. 

In the course of endless discussions, they attempted to rationalize that 
what they were doing was "scientific" and "logical." The concept of the 
Greek "state" comes down through history as being "better" than other 
serpents. This, however, is a comparison between two things of which 
neither can be called good. Like the brainwashed natives, the Greeks 
also let words overrule their Perception. They began to use words as if 
words could create a reality — as if words could do more than point to 
what is real. 

They forgot their original concept that, when organic life was 


created, the extant physical universe became the language between the 
creative intelligence and each individual. They also forgot that it is the 
only language of unquestionable validity between one individual and 
another. Their "state" was no less a fictitious entity than those 
purportedly created by a group-god, even though the fiction was created 
by a fully conscious method in open discussion. 

We always need to keep in mind that individuals can make 
agreements with each other and act together as a group, but when they 
presume to synthesize a group "will" — something more than an 
individual's will and less than the will of the universal creative 
intelligence — they give up their own souls. So the Greek "state" was 
not really different from the age-old serpent or dragon; it was the same 
old reality-defying attempt to destructively-absorb individual wills and 
souls in favor of creating a "will" and "soul" for the group as a whole. 

History indicates that life in Greece was better than most places but 
the cause for the difference needs to be clearly remembered. The 
"Golden Age of Greece" was built upon the thought and behavior 
patterns which people had retained from the time when they had 
consciously upheld individual sovereignty without equivocation. The 
momentum of such thought and behavior patterns continues for several 
centuries, even when no conscious traditions perpetuate it; and it was 
the momentum of a morality based on individualism — not the form of 
the "state" — that resulted in the glory of Greece. 

Considering Greece as it affected the cultural whirlpool that concerns 
us, we need to look at the Greek attitude toward "gods." 

Because the Greeks replaced the group-god, as the "will" of the 
serpent, with laws that everyone knew were man-made, they had the old 
problem of communicating with people who had always thought in 
terms of group-gods. Like the northern Europeans, they originally 
viewed everything as evolved directly from the aboriginal creative 
intelligence of the universe. Consequently, if they were to call the 
aboriginal oneness "god," then every animal, every tree, every human 
would be called a descendant of god. All would be viewed as discrete 
gods or children of god. 

An individual person who seemed to exemplify the finest of qualities, 
qualities which they perceived as the inherited traits of the universal 
creative intelligence, they spoke of in complimentary terms as being a 
god. They said that she or he "is a god" as we might say of a beautiful 
girl "she is a princess," or of a man whose behavior we admired "he is a 
prince of a fellow." This did not mean that they looked upon the praised 
individual as others looked 


upon a group-god. To them "god" did not refer to a person whose 
verbally expressed will should overrule the will of others. "God" 
referred to the qualities of a person — not to a "position of authority." 
Among them an individual human "god" was not someone to be 
worshiped or obeyed, but simply to be admired as an extraordinarily 
good example of someone in harmony with total reality. 

The thought pattern of the northern Europeans was that the aboriginal 
creative intelligence had deliberately divided itself into all the things 
existing in the universe. The purpose of this division was joy in 
diversity. When they went into Greece they were faced with a necessity 
for dealing with those who thought and talked in terms of hypothesized 
group-gods, jealous of other group-gods. Trying to communicate in this 
thought pattern, they made artful creations of type-personalities for 
fictional gods. They discussed the possible relations of these fictional 
gods to each other, and the possible relations of these fictional gods to 
humans. The result was a pantheon of fictional gods, whereby they tried 
to portray various personality possibilities more effectively than such 
things could be pointed out in well-known flesh and blood humans. For 
example, their fictionalized pantheon included a goddess of the hunt, a 
goddess of love, a father-figure for all the gods, et cetera. 

The significant thing was that these gods were definitely not group- 
gods — they were not hypothesized beings whose "will" was 
supposedly passed on to a group leader to become the "authoritative" 
group "will." In Greece, everyone recognized that group "will" was 
synthesized and declared "law" by ordinary men coming together in 
open discussion. 

In both thought and practice the Greeks, themselves, had deteriorated 
from the individual sovereignty they had known before accepting the 
task of making a "government" for slaves seeking a master. However 
they tried to give something to those who knew no way of life other 
than to obey laws supposed to have come from a group-god; they tried 
to give them a demonstration that there can be a separation between 
group "civil government" and an individual's concept of the universe, 
commonly called religion. In this they failed. Very likely it cannot be 
done. But they did accent the distinction between the universal creative 
intelligence and the myriad group-gods, each claimed by its serpent- 
group as being the one and only true god. 



Three hundred years before the birth of Jesus, Alexander of Greece 
conquered all the peoples surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. In the 
areas of the conquered peoples he built Greek-sample-cities that carried 
on the Greek way of life and Greek thought pattern. This Greek thought 
pattern only went part-way across the difference between the thought 
pattern of the still secluded northern Europeans and that of people 
controlled by their obedience to group-gods. At best, it was only a half- 
way preparation for what was to come. Still, around the area where 
Jesus was born, thirteen of these three-hundred-year-old Greek cities 
were still spreading their influence at the time of Jesus. 

By this time, however, the Romans, who had been fighting the 
Greeks for two hundred years, had taken over the Greek command of 
all the peoples around the Mediterranean Sea. 

The Romans, who were a mixture of peoples having various thought 
patterns, had come together with apparently no criterion for human 
relations but expedience in determining their method for gaining and 
holding power. They had the spectacular Greek successes for a model 
and, using anything that worked, they imitated the ways of the Greeks. 
As a result, many of the things they did had the emptiness that comes 
from an imitation. Their "state," which had a senate similar to the Greek 
idea of people discussing how to run a state, took on the dominant 
characteristics of the age-old serpent. The gods in their pantheon took 
on the characteristics of group-gods. Lacking the background and 
creative impulse that had resulted in the Greek pantheon, the Romans 
simply took Greek art and made from it a pantheon of multiple group- 
gods. Ceremony replaced understanding; the ego-flattering prestige, 
arising from a claimed mystic or secret knowledge, replaced the effort 
to communicate. The Roman mystic religion — although it involved 
multiple gods — was used as a single group-god had always been used 
— to inspire obedience to the voice of a serpent. 

Thus at the time of Jesus there were serpents, and empires of 
serpents, in the area. The thought pattern that had come down, by way 
of the Greeks, from those committed to individual sovereignty was 
diluted until it was almost unrecognizable. A few might have been 
found who would have chosen to resist the age-old brainwashing that it 
was immoral to oppose the word control of serpents. But anyone 
wanting to criticize such psuedo-morality had to be careful not to go so 
far as to be tried for treason. However 


plenty of people were ready to listen to one with enough courage to 
advocate rejecting the control over them exercised by 

There was no room in the inn when Jesus was born, but the area 
was ready for Jesus. It is not surprising that our calendar dates 
from his birth; the time also was ready. 


Now, almost two thousand years after Jesus, there are well over 
five hundred Christian sects, each claiming that its adherents have 
the only accurate interpretation of what is written in the Bible 
about his birth, teachings, and crucifixion. There seems to be full 
agreement that he was born of a Jewish mother, was baptized by 
John, and, like John, directed strong criticism and admonitions 
toward the Jews. Like John he referred to them as being serpents, 
and repeatedly called them a generation of vipers, that is, small 
deadly serpents. Matt. 12:34. Matt. 23:33. 

During the time of Jesus, the Jewish serpent was under the 
greater power of the Roman serpent. Jesus was crucified by Roman 
soldiers, following a trial whereby the Romans found him "not 
guilty" but, none the less, carried out his crucifixion because he 
was condemned to death by the Jews. 

Because Jesus had a Jewish mother, and presumably was 
brought up under Jewish customs, present day Jews usually claim 
that Christianity is just a branch of Judaism. That claim, by those 
who crucified and still reject him, adds to the confusion already 
caused by over five hundred Christian sects. 

The life of Jesus, which was written down by four persons over a 
period of about 30 to 90 years after his crucifixion, and then 
"officially" modified about 200 years later, can obviously be given 
various interpretations. Of course the conditions under which it 
was recorded made for inaccuracies. But lack of clarity would 
doubtless still exist if the recorded accuracy of his words was ab- 

Most words have fuzzy meanings at best; often one word may 
have two or more meanings that clearly oppose each other. Jesus 
was talking to people who had been taught something radically dif- 
ferent from what he was telling them, so it was difficult to reach 
their innate understanding through the labyrinth of false ideas that 
had been overlaid upon it. Also he had to be careful not to say 
things that could be construed as treason — that is, he had to be 
careful not to speak out with total clarity against accepted 
"authority." It was a narrow path he had to walk and, as might be 


expected he was often questioned by people looking for treasonous 
remarks He had to be careful what he said to those who wanted to trap 
him Also he had to be careful how he phrased everything he said to 
those who sincerely wanted to hear with understanding. He needed to 
avoid alienating them by triggering the defenses against all opposing 
ideas that are built into every word-control system. To give examples: 

He said that he was not there to condemn the law but that, through 
him, the law might be fulfilled. That could be interpreted that he was 
talking about the Jewish law, the Roman law, or the natural law of the 
universal creative intelligence. 

Another time: Those who were seeking to convict him for treason 
tried to trap him into making some treasonous statement. They ask him, 
"Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" Mark 12:14. The Jews 
were then secretly opposing the power of the Romans. If he answered 
"No" it would be treason against the Romans, while if he answered 
"Yes" the Jews could say that he was siding with the Romans against 
the Jews. Jesus told them to show a coin; then asked whose face was on 
it, which was that of the Roman Caesar. His comment, "Render to 
Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things are are God's" 
deprived them of the treasonous statement they were trying to get. 
Mark 12:17. 

The above statement was often later interpreted as approval by Jesus 
of both state and church. Clearly the words do not say that anything 
belongs to Caesar. Also they do not define what the word "god" means 
within the context of that particular statement. 

Throughout all history people have been word controlled and the 
word "god" is usually involved in this control. Much of the trouble 
comes from the fact that the word is given a variety of meanings. It is 
often very difficult to know what one's most intimate friends mean 
when they use the word. The question of what Jesus meant whenever he 
used the word lies at the heart of much controversy. Certainly the word, 
itself, cannot explain his meaning when he used it. 

Jesus never advocated the group-god who purportedly said to Moses, 
"Thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is 
Jealous, is a jealous God." Ex. 34:14. Obviously such a god could not 
be the creative intelligence of the entire universe; the universal creative 
intelligence would not imply the existence of, or be jealous of, other 

Jesus never advocated a god that gave messages in words to a group- 
leader. Nor did he ever advocate a god that made a covenant with one 
group of people to the hurt of others. He never advocated 


a god that said to the leader of a chosen group of people, "Behold, I 
send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee 
into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his 
voice, provoke him not: for he will not pardon your transgressions: for 
my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all 
that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an 
adversary unto thine adversaries." Ex. 23:20-22. There is more than 
abundant evidence that the god of the Jews was a typical group-god. 

The word "god" was often avoided by Jesus. He reached for a new 
word. The reason why he had to do this is fully understandable. He had 
to try reaching people's inborn intelligence that had been perverted by 
word control. He was faced with the problem of presenting a concept to 
replace that of a group-god. 

All, who do not think of themselves as being human computers, must 
believe that creative intelligence exists in the universe — because they 
perceive creative intelligence in themselves. Unless they have wandered 
off into that field of madness where they think that theirs is the only 
intelligence — unless they think that they, themselves, created and can 
manipulate everyone around them — they believe that intelligence 
existed in their fathers, and in their father's fathers, back to some 
beginning that may be difficult for them to perceive, or even conceive. 
No matter how far back we are able to conceive that the creative 
intelligence, which exists in ourselves, may have existed before us — 
whether only in humans, in all "higher" animals, in all organic life, or 
before there was a physical universe — it is a reasonable figure of 
speech to call the aboriginal creative intelligence "our father." Jesus 
apparently used the word "father" when talking about the aboriginal 
creative intelligence of the universe. He used the word "god" at various 
times, sometimes as an alternate for the creative intelligence that he 
spoke of as father, and perhaps sometimes in talking to others of a god 
that he knew was different from the god spoken of as his father. 

Clearly when Jesus spoke of father as "god" he was not talking of a 
god that only related to a people as a group. His father was not a god 
one approached as a "part" of a people deserving preferential treatment, 
a preferential treatment to be claimed because of an exclusive covenent 
— nor any covenant. If Jesus called the aboriginal father by the term 
god, he was then talking about a god totally unlike the god of the Jews; 
he was using the same word to mean a god who related to individuals. 
To show the difference, Jesus condemned those who prayed in the 
streets, thanking their 


god that they were better than other men. Luke 18:11. He told people to 
go home, find a place where they could be alone and pray after this 
manner, "Our Father ... Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, 
as it is in heaven." Matt. 6:6-10. The god of Jesus, was a father of 
individuals — not a father of groups. 

The god of Jesus was not a god of people pooling their power as a 
group. The god of Jesus was not even a god exclusively concerned with 
humans. The same god was concerned with the well-being of the 
smallest sparrow, and with the well-being of the lillies of the field, that 
neither toiled nor made their own clothes, yet were dressed far more 
beautifully than "Solomon in all his glory." Luke 12:27. 

The god of Jesus was radically different from the god of the Jews; 
also the values of Jesus were diametrically opposed to Jewish values. 
There was no such thing as borrowing all the jewels from neighbors 
when one planned to poison their first born and run away with so many 
of their possessions that it would spoil them. There was no waging war 
on another group of people who had brought a land to high productivity 
— in order to feast on the milk and honey others had produced. Jesus 
expressed his values by saying, "Take no thought for your life, what you 
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall 
put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" Matt. 
6:25. Of the life he had chosen for himself, he said, "The foxes have 
holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the son of man has not 
where to lay his head." Matt. 8:20. 

He offered no such commandments as Moses had offered on stone — 
all designed for only one purpose: To keep the group together as a 
tightly knit power, seeking possessions and guarding those possessions, 
under the direction of a leader who alone could communicate with the 
group-god. Instead of obedience to laws and a leader, he advocated 
unequivocal respect for the silent voice within each person. Mark 3:28- 
29 quotes the words of Jesus: "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be 
forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they 
shall blaspheme; But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost 
hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of external damnation." He 
valued individual perception wherever he found it, even in a Roman 
soldier. Matt. 8:5-13. And he said of children (who had not been brain- 
washed with words), "of such is the kingdom of God." Mark 10:14. He 
did not praise those skilled in quoting law. Instead he said, "Blessed are 
the pure in heart: for they shall see God." Matt. 5:8. 


The god of Jesus was different from that of the Jews. His values 
were different from those of the Jews. And now we come to his 
teachings as regards relations between humans. These also are dif- 
ferent. He did not try to bring a group together to form a serpent 
that would eat up other serpents. His teachings, and methods of 
propagating them, were those of individuals. 

He recognized that training for group action — particularly in a 
Jewish household — often begins in the family. So he said that, in 
dealing with each other as individuals, it might even be necessary to 
set members of the family against each other. In Matt. 10:35, he 
says, "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and 
the daughter against her mother." 

Always looking for evidence of perception manifest in each in- 
dividual human, he showed great joy when he found such percep- 
tion in one of his disciples and demonstrated his approval of what 
he perceived. He said to Peter, the perceptive individual — not to 
the group as a group: "upon this rock I will build my church; and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18. 

Building upon perceptive individuals, without giving a leader 
"authority" over followers, takes time — often generations — and 
Jesus recognized the difficulty of the method he was choosing. 
Especially he recognized that not many Jews, to whom he was 
originally trying to limit his message, were ready to accept such a 
slow unflamboyant process. He did not try to push too hard. In- 
stead he said, "No man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the 
new wine will burst the bottles and be spilled. ... No man also hav- 
ing drunk old wine straightway desireth new; for he saith, The old 
is better." Luke 5:37-39. 

Much of his teachings referred to the natural world; his method 
of propagating those teachings was that of waiting for organic 
growth — as opposed to quick, group-organizational methods. He 
said, "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, 
which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least 
of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, 
and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in 
the branches thereof." Matt. 13:31-32. 

In contrast to the nature comparison for the kingdom of heaven, 
he said of those who were proud of their endlessly complicated laws 
and tedious "sacred" ceremonies, "ye are like unto whited 
sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within 
full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. ... Ye serpents, ye 
geneation of vipers; how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" 
Matt. 23:27-33. 


Those who lived by the serpent system, constantly tried to pro- 
voke him into making treasonous statements. He skillfully avoided 
the traps they laid. 

When the time was ripe, he drew the tension tighter between himself 
and those who looked upon him as an "unauthorized" challenger of 
"sacred" laws and traditions. The contrast had been carefully drawn and 
he saw that the contrast had been made abundantly clear. The way of 
the serpent was the way of kings and people-as-a-group — all creating 
unreal entities that existed only as words. The way of the serpent was 
pooling individual will and action to make the hypothesized "will" that 
directed action for a group. It offered the temptation of a quick way to 
obtain the wealth and power of the world. But as "parts" of serpents, in- 
dividuals lose their own souls. Jesus presented the searching question: 
"What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose 
his own soul?" Mark 8:36. 

No one has ever given a reasoned defense of the serpent's way. The 
answer never comes in words seeking to express reason. Then, even as 
throughout all the present world, people accustomed to word control lay 
in wait for any individual who openly dares to condemn groupism as 
immoral. Any defiance of the pseudo-morality that individuals should 
be sacrificed for the good of the group is called "treasonous" or 
"unpatriotic." These words have been given a connotation, or emotional 
charge, designating the vilest persons imaginable. The group-hatred 
triggered against an individual by the connotation of the words is the 
only defense of the serpent way that comes from those who give up 
their own souls to become part of an imaginary serpent soul. 

At his last supper Jesus set an example of communion between equal 
individuals who might remember and honor him for what he was doing. 
Then he went out into the garden, where groups seeking to silence him 
would find him communing with his father, which was also the father of 
the trees under whose branches he prayed. 

With full knowledge of what he was doing, he had chosen his own 
time to confront and let loose the hatred of those who he knew would 
put him to death. Beforehand he had said of his life, "No man taketh it 
from me, but I lay it down of myself." John 10:18. He offered this 
explanation: "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it 
abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." John 12:24. 

Jesus left no commandments carved on stone, he wrote no books, nor 
did he establish any ceremonies for worshipping a god. He established 
no organizations; that is to say, he created no ser- 


pent to eat up other serpents. He knew that such a system never gets 
rid of the last one. Instead, acting as if he were the most ordinary 
individual son of man, he tried to show others the way back to the 
kingdom of heaven, the way that their communion with serpents 
had closed away from them. 

His life was not something that others need to imitate; that 
would give other lives the emptiness of all imitations. Also the 
significance of his life and death would not be increased by one 
duplication, nor by a million such duplications. His life and death 
made the complete, supremely eloquent statement — in the 
language of reality — for all who had been lured from the kingdom 
of heaven by word-created-serpents. 

His life and death demonstrated the unreconcilable relationship 
between all such serpents and one who, with understanding, could 
call the universal creative intelligence, father. It remained only for 
others to see that significance in Jesus as a reality, for others to ac- 
cept the way pointed by Jesus as opposed to the way of the fic- 
titious group serpent, and for others to point out that way to 
everyone throughout the world of word-controlled-people who had 
lost their souls by accepting the words of the serpent. The signifi- 
cant message of Jesus was this: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in 
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That 
whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting 
life." John 3:14-15. 


Moses was a serpent maker. He had lifted up a serpent in com- 
petition against other serpents. But Jesus had said, "The law and 
the prophets were until John." Luke 16:16. 

Jesus asked that he, himself, be lifted up — as the way, the truth, 
and the light. The significance of this cannot be overestimated. It 
could have been the turning point of history. For the salvation of 
those who would accept him, a god of individuals had now come 
among humans to replace the group-gods presented by those who 
advocate the way of serpents. 

Whether or not the miracles attributed to Jesus indicate non- 
human power cannot be known, any more that we can have 
positive knowledge regarding similar things that often happen 
before our eyes now. And one's opinion about these things does 
not affect the significance of the total. Also one's opinion as to 
whether Jesus was born of a virgin or whether he rose from the 
dead and again appeared to others in the flesh does not affect the 
significance of Jesus as a total reality. 


The important thing that had happened is this: As an integrated 
whole, the life, death, and teachings of Jesus offered salvation to the 
whole human species that, throughout all history, has been headed for 
damnation — because humans have been moving in a direction that 
opposes the manifest direction of the universal creative intelligence. 

To escape damnation everyone who has become a "part" of a 
fictitious "group-whole" must reject the way of the serpent, must reject 
all group-gods, of which the group-god of the Jews is the prime 
example, and must be "born again" as an integrated individual. 

Throughout all history, serpent-dominated individuals have wanted 
to find a kingdom not of the serpent world that surrounded them. They 
have always known that they could be persons of integrity, that they 
could be more than mere "parts" of a fictitious something. 

By nature, humans are moral animals; that is to say, humans are 
conscious of the creative intelligence within them; they want to use 
their own discrete intelligence for creations which are in harmony with 
the creative intelligence of the total universe. The pseudo-morality 
advocated by the serpent makers overrules those who disagree with it 
— and turns them in the opposite direction. This is easily done because 
a lone individual often lacks the moral courage to follow his own 
judgment when that means bucking the tide of public opinion. The 
individual feels insecure when faced with millions of his own species 
who obey an "authority" giving directions in words that millions press 
upon the lone individual with force-backed self-righteousness. 

Jesus made his whole being an unequivocal statement saying: An 
individual's transgression against the holy spirit within him is the one 
unforgivable thing that will lead to eternal damnation. He taught, lived 
and died as an individual. He asked all who would be saved from 
damnation to follow him, to recognize that an individual's worth came 
from the creative intelligence of the universe — and was greater than 
the law and the prophets. His teachings gave all people the message of 
their worth as individuals, then told them to accept, as their continuing 
teacher, the holy spirit that would be with them after he was gone. 

Many failed to understand. But when the Greeks looked at the life, 
death, and teachings of Jesus, a chord of almost forgotten memories 
was struck. That chord vibrated with a harmonious yes-saying. 

The Greeks had been trying to present their concepts of the 


aboriginal creative intelligence to people whose language was 
group-gods. They had not been successful. In fact, their efforts had 
even produced a reverse effect — had produced greater 
misunderstanding. The Romans took the artful attempts the 
Greeks made at self-expression and turned them into a whole pan- 
theon of group-gods. 

Now the Greeks saw that something miraculous had happened. 
From the very midst of the Jews — who had the most deliberate, 
most studied, and most unequivocal adherence to a group-god of 
any known people — came Jesus. In the life, death, and teachings 
of the flesh-and-blood- Jesus the Greeks saw a full-blown reality of 
what their almost forgotten heritage cried out. 

Logos, in the Greek language, means the creative idea that exists, 
unexpressed, within the universal creative intelligence before it is 
made into a tangible reality. There is no word in the English 
language comparable to logos — because the thought pattern that 
was common to the Greeks, the East Indians, and the early nor- 
thern Europeans is no longer common enough among English 
speaking peoples for us to have a single word to express it. In 
English, logos is usually translated into "word." "Word" is a 
ludicrous caricature for "logos," if not its diametrical opposite. 
Fortunately, we can understand the Greek thought when we see 
"logos" in context of both language and thought. The thought has 
already been presented in the life, death, and teachings of Jesus. 
The Greek thought pattern becomes clear when we look again at 
the integrated whole put into Greek words. 

The Greeks had been trying to make things simple by expressing 
aspects of the universal creative intelligence, and had found 
themselves helpless to get their ideas across to peoples committed to 
group-gods, each claiming that its own jealous god was the one and 
only god of the universe. In Jesus they were able to see, not merely 
a single aspect of the aboriginal creative intelligence, but the whole 
of the thing they had been trying to express. In Jesus they could see 
the total universal creative intelligence, living as a discrete in- 
dividual among the serpent makers. They could see Jesus as the 
total aboriginal intelligence trying to communicate with word- 
controlled people in garbled word-language — in man made words 
that deny reality as the only valid language of the universal creative 
intelligence. They recognized that Jesus put into words a great, il- 
luminating truth that transcended words, when he said, "He that 
hath seen me hath seen the Father; ... I am in the Father, and the 
Father in me." John 14:9-11. 

This truth is presented from the Greek perspective in the first 


chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John. Originally written in 
Greek it says: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with 
God, and the logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made 
that was made." (That is to say, such things as a body politic or a group- 
god, created by men in their imaginations and called real because given 
a name, have no reality.) John goes on, clearly speaking — not of a 
group-god — but of the aboriginal creative intelligence: "And the logos 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the 
glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." 
John 1:1-14. 


All who had seen and heard about Jesus had long been conditioned to 
think only of serpent ways. Immediately they began to form groups that 
differed with other groups on the meaning each placed on what Jesus 
had said and done. His life, death, and teachings were an integrated 
whole — but the people tried to divide him into pieces from which to 
make competing group-gods. In accordance with their word- 
conditioning, they wanted an "authority" expressed in words. As a 
result, many failed to see the total reality. They sought for a "Christian" 
morality without rejecting the diametrically opposing way of the 
serpent. They continued to focus on words. 

Jesus had said that if someone hits you on one cheek, turn the other; 
and if a Roman soldier orders you to go along with him and carry his 
load for a mile, then offer to go with him another mile. Taken by itself, 
this could be confusing to one looking for a word-stated morality. The 
Jewish serpent was then "existing" under the tolerance of the Roman 
serpent. About 40 years later Roman tolerance came to an end, but at 
the time of Jesus each Jew was seen by other Jews as having openly 
expressed allegiance to the Roman serpent and secret allegiance to the 
Jewish serpent. If one did not openly support the Roman serpent, nor 
contribute to the secret Jewish revolutionary plans, it was ordinary 
prudence to irritate neither those committed to Jewish nor to Roman 
"authority." This is ordinary expedience for an individual caught in a 
world of serpent ways — who chooses not to call upon one of the 
serpents for group protection. Such ordinary expedience becomes a 
moral statement only if, along with the total teachings of Jesus, it is seen 
as saying: Take no part in the ways of the serpent. In the parable of the 
good Samaritan, Jesus made it clear that the 


love of neighbor which he advocated dealt with individuals — and did 
not recognize serpent type groupings. Luke 10:30-37. 

Since everyone knew only serpent ways, there was no framework or 
thought pattern among those to whom he spoke, for talking of personal 
relations in a kingdom of heaven. "Authority" was everyone's concern. 
"Authority" was a creation of words. Everyone thought, talked, and 
examined words for their legalistic meaning as an expression of 
"authority." Following this practice, they examined the words of Jesus 
as isolated statements. 

The meaning of "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of god," and "my 
kingdom is not of this world" constituted a big point of differences 
among various groups. Some insisted that Jesus referred to a world after 
death, others that he referred to a better way of life on earth. Luke 
17:20-21, quotes Jesus as saying, "The kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or lo, there! for, 
behold, the kingdom of God is within you." 

Both the teachings and the life and death of Jesus were clear and 
easily understood by an unconditioned child. Matt. 18:3, quotes the 
words of Jesus: "Unless ye be converted, and become as little children, 
ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." 

Adults were less capable of understanding than unconditioned 
children. For thousands of years words had been used to overrule the 
perception and understanding of people, to make them slaves to 
"authorities" advocating group-gods. Remembered serpent words and 
ideas mutilated clear thought immediately after Jesus, even as they have 
continued to do for two thousand years. They became like weeds 
growing among the seeds Jesus had planted. Those following Jesus all 
too often formed a group of individuals who saw themselves as a group 
because they contrasted themselves to other groups as groups. The holy 
spirit, that the individual was to know as the one true guide never to be 
transgressed against, was even interpreted by some as the community 

The Greek thought pattern, the Jewish thought pattern, the Roman 
thought pattern, and many others swirled around and created a 
maelstrom of word confusion. 

Among the Jews, Jesus was looked upon as a renegade daring to 
question the holiness of their ancient traditions. They had long ex- 
perience in silencing opposition, and Jesus even had the audacity to 
choose the occasion of the "sacred" Passover Feast as his time for an all- 
out confrontation of the very tradition being celebrated. After he was 
silenced, and the Roman soldiers had added the final ridicule to the 
Jews by placing a sign "King of the Jews" over the pathetic, spit-upon- 
figure hanging on the cross, the majority of 


Jews thought the sooner they could forget the whole incident the better. 

Certainly the new wine Jesus offered would have broken the old 
bottles. Those who tried to benefit from the enthusiasm he had 
generated in his followers sought to interpret his life and death as if it 
were a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies. But the majority of Jews would 
have none of that. The new Jewish Sect, as simply a split-off from 
traditional Judaism, soon died out. 

Jesus had used a parable about a wheat sower to describe the organic 
method he had chosen for spreading his significant message. Mark 4:3- 
20. The accuracy of the parallel became more apparent as time went on. 
Under cover of night many serpent eggs were sown among the corns of 
wheat. As he had forseen, there were many claiming to do great things 
in his name to whom he would have said, "I never knew you: depart 
from me, ye that work iniquity." Matt. 7:23. 

Less than three hundred years after his crucifixion, there were 
already over a hundred sects calling themselves "Christians." Ap- 
parently the differences between them were much wider than such 
differences now. Some opposed serpent methods and were actively 
persecuted by the Romans. Others sought to profit by their conformity 
with various facets of the status quo. 

Paul, whose letters became part of the New Testament, helped 
promote a whole chain of churches and injected the idea that the 
crucifixion of Jesus was in keeping with Jewish practices of offering 
blood sacrifices to propitiate the jealous Jewish group-god. Among 
some sects the whole Jewish Bible was actually attached to the growing 
aggregation of prescribed practices for the administration of churches 
that went under the name of "Christian." 

Clearly some of the churches were moving in the direction of 
becoming serpents. And, as might be expected, the most ambitious 
serpent makers tied their new semi-organisms to the Jewish Bible; it 
was, and still is, the world's most comprehensive manual for serpent 

Combining the Jewish Bible with the diametrically opposite message 
of Jesus made a formidable aggregate of confused ideas. Such 
confusion opened a field of competition between those seeking to 
become "authorities." Some leaders, who had developed elaborate 
dogmas and formed groups of word-controlled followers, sought to 
have the Roman Emperor give his approval to their group and its' 
dogmas — to set them up as the "officially" recognized head of all who 
called themselves Christians. The Emperor Constantine, after switching 
back and forth several times 


between the leaders of various serpent-making sects, finally made a 
definite choice. The church under this leader was permitted to be the 
one "officially" called the "Christian Church" with the Emperor's 
approval. The leader could speak with "authority" for all "Christianity." 

The leader of the imperially "authorized" church, now called the 
Pope, claimed "authority" in words, not only from the Emperor but also 
from Jesus, himself. Jesus had acknowledge perception in an individual 
by saying: Upon this rock I will build my church and I give you the 
keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be 
bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven. That — in the non-verbal world and the language of reality — 
is what the aboriginal creative intelligence said, and continues to say, to 
all perceptive humans — and to all other forms of life. There is no limit 
to what an individual can accomplish so long as one offers no 
unperceptive opposition to the direction of the universal creative 
intelligence. Among humans, the damned are those who listen to the 
voice of the serpent, and let words deflect the direction pointed by their 
native perception. The "authorized" misinterpretation, which the Pope 
put on the words Jesus had used to acknowledge Peter's perception, was 
that Jesus had appointed Peter the first Pope, and had given him, and all 
succeeding Popes, absolute "authority" over the entire world. 

The Pope arrogated to himself this unique word-controlling 
"authority" by means of his "official position." He used this "position" 
to make his sect into the Catholic (or universal) Church, and to wipe out 
all true Christians, who, of course, opposed serpent-making practices. 

About a hundred years later, the Roman Emperor gave the Catholic 
Church "authority" to use force in wiping out any remaining Christians, 
who opposed the Church's serpent-making practices. With this 
"authority " the Catholic Church became a full-fledged serpent. 

About two hundred years later, the Roman serpent had been so 
weakened by fighting other serpents, that the Church took control of 
what was left of the Roman Empire. The Church serpent then set out to 
become truly universal and to control the earth. 

But meanwhile another serpent had come along, that is to say, 
another source of word-control was making individuals into a slightly 
different semi-organism. 


Serpent making is mob-stimulation combined with mob-control. 


It is the old carrot and stick routine used to control jackasses. The words 
usually supply the carrot, and a well-organized police force usually 
becomes the stick. Then, when the time is ripe, the mob is stimulated by 
words and used for mass warfare. 

The Jewish serpent, as historically known, had its beginning while 
the Jews were under the stick of the Egyptians. While Moses held out 
the word-carrot of a full-fledged Jewish serpent to the Jews, their fear of 
Egyptian reprisals for their sabotaging actions was sufficient to keep 
them on course — until they were alone. Then Moses had to make his 
own stick, which he did without hesitation. 

The Romans did not have a very effective carrot for inducing mass 
fanaticism until the Catholic Church became identified with Roman 
Power. Then, before the Catholic Church became fully effective, 
Mohammed came on the world scene. He was a careful observer — and 
he was born in the very middle of the verbal snake-pit. He looked at the 
ways of serpents and set out to make a serpent of his own. 

Mohammed had observed the power that words have to overrule 
individual perception. He could neither read nor write but he was 
impressed with the idea that the Jewish Bible, as it had been used by the 
Catholic Church, had swallowed up and substantially destroyed the 
teachings of Jesus — because it was a written book. To create a greater 
serpent that any that existed, he could see that a book like that of the 
Jews would be useful — a book that people accepted as being the actual 
written words of their god. Mohammed obviously did not want to be as 
ambiguous as Moses and claim that the god of the universe ratified 
some unstated human laws. He, at least, tried to make one complete 
package but, like Moses, he wanted serpent-making words. He said that 
the Koran was dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel and had others 
write down for him what the angel purportedly dictated. 

The Koran claims the same unique and final monotheism proclaimed 
by all the myriad group-gods since long before any known history. 
Mohammed made a point of emphasizing this "one and only true god" 
more strongly even than all the others had done. The Koran ordered the 
followers to repeat over and over, conspicuously and aloud, five times a 
day: "There is one god, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." 

When looking at the Koran in total, one clearly sees that Mohammed 
was creating a group-god — not pointing out the universal creative 
intelligence as Jesus had done. But the universal appeal of Jesus could 
not fail to impress upon Mohammed the idea 


that the Jews had made a strategic mistake in claiming to be a separate 
or "chosen people." The Roman Empire had claimed to be universal. 
Now the "Official Christian" Church was called "Catholic," or 
universal. The power it was accumulating must have impressed him that 
universality was the expedient way for him to go. The Kingdom of 
Islam, consisting of all who obeyed the Koran, was designed to be 

The Catholic Church could be seen by Mohammed to have created a 
future trouble for itself by tying itself to the Jewish Bible and Jewish 
serpent-making laws, when Jesus had opposed Jewish teachings. To 
avoid such obvious contradictions, the Koran set up its own laws in 
great detail and was as complete in itself as Mohammed was able to 
make it. However, it avoided possible confrontations by saying that 
Moses had been adequate to his time, and Jesus had been adequate to 
his time, but that both had been prophets — not gods — and the Koran 
gave Mohammed the place of the last and greatest prophet. Since Islam 
was designed to include everyone in the world, it was expedient to 
acknowledge the lesser greatness, for their times, of the other "prophets" 
that people might be reluctant to give up. Mohammed said that 
Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Alexander of Greece, and several others had 
been "inspired." 

Mohammed had been a camel driver. He knew full well that no one 
can control camels, jackasses, or mobs of people made into a semi- 
organism, by carrots alone — at least not until they have been so fully 
trained that they go through routine motions without any thought of 
opposition. A stick is necessary in the initial training. He could see in 
Catholic "Christianity" nothing but another group-god serpent as the 
Nomadic Jewish Nation had always been. He could see that Catholic 
"Christianity" got its serpent-making stick when it linked up with the 
Roman Empire. He could compare the sticks used by the Jews and the 

For their stick, the Jews had shown a preference for underhanded 
methods, even to the point of having their women prostitute themselves 
to manipulate or stab an enemy king, but the Jews had also done some 
of the bloodiest butchering ever known; they had proudly made their 
record of it part of their Bible. However, Moses, at first perhaps a little 
too proud of the underhanded methods the Jews had used so 
successfully in Egypt, had thought that they could always rely 
exclusively on the same sort of methods. Moses had been rash enough 
to say that his god had given him a commandment, "Thou shalt not 
kill." Mohammed was not so inconsistent. He knew that a stick was 
always used in serpent making. He was more honest about it than Moses 
had been. However, he 


was not entirely honest. He knew that aggressive warfare is waged with 
greater vigor when it is called defensive. 

The Koran made "holy war" a commandment. According to 
Mohammed, the Angel Gabriel dictated the words: "Fight in the path of 
god against those who fight against you, but be not the aggressor, for 
verily god loveth not the aggressors. And slay them wherever you find 
them, and drive them out of the places where they drove you out, for 
persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they desist, then verily god is 
forgiving, merciful." 

Then the final carrot was supplied to promote "holy war." It was 
supplied from the Catholic "authorized" version of the kingdom of 
heaven. The Koran said that the spirits of those who died for their god 
would live after death in a place that was ideal — ideal in the master- 
slave thought pattern of "civilized" people. It went on to say that all 
who died without following the teachings of the Koran would go to a 
hell of eternal torment, again in the thought pattern of "civilized" or 
serpent people, living by mass warfare — those who know what it 
means to fall into the hands of a mass warfare enemy. 

There is no evidence that Mohammed ever saw the salvation that 
Jesus was offering those who, throughout all known history, had 
listened to serpent-makers and had lost their individual souls to become 
"parts" of serpents. Presumably Mohammed had no conception of a 
world without serpents. That is not unusual. Today the great majority of 
people look only at the word-created serpent world and have the same 
word-conditioned blindness to the world of enduring reality. 

For a long time it looked as if Mohammed was indeed the last and 
greatest of the serpent-makers. In a century and a half, Islam 
"swallowed up" most of the Roman Empire and was also extended in 
the other direction over much of India. 


Moral, as used here, means what appears to be most in keeping with 
the observed, long-range direction of the universal creative intelligence. 

In non-human animals, morality, or lack of it, can be seen only after 
their acts. After thousands of years have established their direction, the 
morality, or lack of it, in non-verbal animals can be seen in their 
evolutionary development; some evolve further, some become extinct, 
others regress — return to an evolutionary stage that had already been 

Using words, humans have the ability to state their direction 


before they act. When humans with such ability see individual ef- 
forts at self-expression ridiculed and mocked at by a force-backed 
word-conditioned group, their frustrated desire for self-expression 
becomes pent-up violence. Then they act without declaring their 
direction. This condition is called "anarchy." As night follows 
day, anarchy follows the fellow-feeling desire to state one's direc- 
tion, when attempted word control, resulting in word-created con- 
fusion, has made all attempts to communicate individual percep- 
tion appear futile. 

When humans come into conflict, either in a state of anarchy or 
in the word-stimulated mass warfare that characterizes serpents, 
their actions become horrifyingly incomprehensible to non-verbal 
animals. Their behavior is not animal; non-verbal animals are 
unable to perceive the word-conditioned insanity motivating 
humans. Group-imposed word conditioning, that distorts the in- 
nate perception of individuals, is the basic cause of all such worse- 
than-animal horror. 

Unquestionably groups have power to dominate — to control or 
destroy — individuals. Under demagogs this group power becomes 
group tyranny. A clearly stated course of action must be one of two 
things. It must be either: (1) Group support of individual sovereign- 
ty, or (2) Group sovereignty imposed on individuals who reject it. 
Any attempt to compromise the two opposing directions can only 
result in confusion and horror. 

Group sovereignty, forced on individuals by a word-manipulated 
group, is the way of the serpent. The advocates of such a direction 
have always claimed that anyone who advocated individual 
sovereignty was immoral. The Jews, among whom Jesus was born, 
had a fully documented history of advocating the pseudo-morality 
of groupism. 

Jesus was crucified but his life, death, and teachings proclaimed 
the morality that individuals should be guided by the holy spirit 
within them — not by the word-stated pseudo-morality of 
groupism, not by the law and the prophets. He so lived that the only 
accusation which could be made against him was the fact that he 
advocated individual sovereignty. Because no other accusation was 
possible, his crucified figure became a shining light that illuminated 
his message with unmistakable clarity. Deliberately he chose the 
final confrontation with groupism, so as to make the ultimate state- 
ment of which any individual is capable. He knew that, if the state- 
ment he made with hjs whole being was accepted as a statement of 
the universal creative intelligence, it could bring salvation to all the 
group-dominated individuals of the world. Individuals could then 


find the necessary confidence in the still, silent voice born within them 
to resist the blatant, word-expressed pseudo-morality of groupism. 

Now we are going to look at a people fully committed to individual 
sovereignty, a whole people sufficiently great in numbers so that they 
could have effectively opposed the direction of an encroaching serpent. 

When the Roman Empire began encroaching on the people of 
northern Europe, the native tribes there might be compared to the 
American Indians as they were when the northern Europeans — after 
becoming "civilized" — began encroaching on them. The "civilized" 
Romans called them "utterly immoral barbarians." 

There were differences among the various tribes of northern Europe, 
as there were among American Indian tribes. Some historians make a 
distinction between the Teutonic tribes and the Celtic tribes, because of 
language and because the Celts had some semblance of group-gods. The 
Celts also had druids (or priests) whom they accepted as spokesmen for 
their gods. The Teutonic peoples had neither group-gods nor druids. 
Perhaps the greater difference was simply that the Celts were located in 
a belt that formed a passage between Rome and the British Isles and 
were the first to be "civilized." The Roman armies forced their way 
through this area and subjugated both the area of passage and the isles 
of Britain, where there were some more of the same "barbarians." At the 
time of maximum Roman power this belt was called Gaul. The area 
further east was called Germany. 

Writers at the time of the Roman Empire called all the northern 
European people, who had not been subjugated, Germans. The great 
majority of people now in America, the British Isles, Scandinavia, and 
Europe are descendants of these German tribes — Angles, Goths, 
Franks, Saxons, et cetera — but most of the American, British and 
Scandinavian Germans have fought two wars in this century against a 
small portion still in the heart of what was originally called Germany. 
That small remaining portion is all that many now mean by the word 
German. The word "German" has come to carry the connotation of 
"foreign enemy." 

The confusion of the word "German" is unavoidable because we 
cannot talk about the original people without using the word in the way 
it was used two thousand years ago — as "American Indian" is used in 
the United States. German, as I am using it, means all German tribes, 
which includes the ancestors of most people in America, the United 
Kingdom, present day Europe, Scandinavia, et cetera. However, it is not 
blood-heredity that provides interest 


here; it is the remaining traces of prehistory thought patterns. We are 
looking at the fork in the road; we are looking at a time when our 
ancestors had started down the other fork, when they had chosen the 
direction of individual sovereignty. A point of great interest is that they 
had chosen their direction with full knowledge of the opposite fork. 
They were not only consciously rejecting the other fork, they were 
consciously resisting influences that would press them in the way many 
others were going. Civilization and non-civilization were not indicators 
of the two directions. The manufactured products of "civilization" were 
incidental and not part of the choice. The issue was morality — 
harmony or lack of harmony with the direction of the universal creative 
intelligence — individualism or groupism. 

The American Indians, at least in most areas, had no knowledge of 
and no pressures upon them from group semi-organisms. They had no 
pressures that a word-created pseudo-morality, declaring that killing 
must be the exclusive prerogative of some group "authority," should 
replace their native perception. Our knowledge of the Incas and Aztecs 
is incomplete and possibly they did advocate such a pseudo-morality, 
but, if so, the pressure did not affect the whole Indian population of the 
Americas. Most Indian tribes had not been faced with the necessity for 
choosing at the fork of the road. They had not recognized the dangers of 
groupism. Tribal cohesiveness was conspicuous. The Indians even 
called anyone who insisted on living alone instead of with some tribe 
"crazy man." However, they were close enough to nature to recognize 
that it would be madness to say that a human could not retain his innate 
animal sovereignty as an individual. 

Serpent makers try to frighten people with a picture of horror that 
would result if individuals were not held in check by restricting the use 
of all force to that ordered by group "authorities." The horror would 
doubtless be true if restrictions were lifted suddenly on dense 
populations that have been word conditioned for centuries. But the 
horror would result from the word conditioning — not the nature of the 
human animal. When conscious individual sovereignty has been the 
articulated morality for centuries, and a fair fight concept — as a way to 
prevent sneak attacks — has simply been added to extant animal 
sovereignty in nature, then the opposite is true. Where people not only 
feel free to do so, but also feel morally obligated, as individuals, to kill 
off, in a fair fight, any underhanded or unscrupulous persons among 
themselves, they can feel only strong love and comradeship for those 
who are left. There is then no need for saying what Jesus found 
necessary to say to the 


Jews: "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have 
loved you." John 15:12. 

However the same evolutionary process that breeds love also breeds 
competent and courageous warriors. Germans successfully fought 
against the Roman Empire but, having individual freedom to make their 
own choices, some became Roman mercenaries and Roman citizens. 
Even at the time of Christ, as well as before and after, the Roman 
Emperor depended almost exclusively on German soldiers to protect 
him from others scheming for his throne. Their oaths of fidelity, the 
dependability of which was amazing to serpent people, made them one 
of the Emperor's most significant forces. In the case of Claudius, it even 
appears that the German guards made their own selection of who would 
be the next Emperor. 

From Caesar and Tacitus, we learn that the Germans pushed back or 
killed off intruders, but had no thought patterns for "owning" land. In 
this respect they were like the American Indians, but they carried their 
rejection of "ownership" still further. The Germans made a point of 
having their chosen chiefs, or "kings" as Caesar called them, 
reapportion the land they cultivated every year so they would not 
become attached to one place. They also did not want to become 
attached to houses. They built minimal houses which were never in 
sight of each other. 

Caesar and Tacitus, viewing the Germans from a "civilized" 
perspective, were impressed that they elected "kings" but did not seem 
to be subservient to them. We can go beyond the "civilized" 
perspective, and arrive at some understanding, when we remember 
Lycurgus. This real or imaginary wise-man-ruler of the Greeks refused 
to allow laws to be reduced to rigid form. Custom was recognized as 
superior to rigid laws and written laws were considered highly 
undesirable. Following such thought it becomes apparent that the 
German "king" was a symbolic figure. He was chosen to publicly 
personify and symbolize the ideal German, acting in the popularly 
approved way. The "king" was simply the man chosen to personify the 
German ideal. The girl chosen each year as Miss America would be a 
parallel if she were chosen by popular acclaim rather than by 
commercial interests. 

No king and no word-laws ruled the German people. Word-control 
was not permitted to transgress against the holy spirit within each 
individual. Without being fully armed and ready to fight, the Germans 
never met for public discussions. No word-laws, handing "authority" to 
some "king" or "prime minister" or "senate," were made at a group 
meeting. It was a meeting to test the remaining tensile strength of old 
customs and propose new 


practices or modifications of the old. Group custom recognized that 
power and will had always existed, and should remain, in individuals. 
In group meetings everyone was free to put his opinions in words. 
Approval was expressed by the cheering sound of beating swords 
against resonant shields. The sound made by that approval was the 
sound of the only power which can claim the manifest approval of the 
universal creative intelligence — that willed by the un-distorted voice 
of the discrete individual's deepest being. 

If someone wanted to propose a fight that would require group effort, 
he stood up in the meeting, stated that he proposed to lead such a fight, 
then invited all who wanted to participate and accept his leadership to 
join him. Another way was for someone to point out the necessity for a 
fight; then those who wanted to participate would elect the best leader 
among themselves. Those who wanted to add their weight to a leader's 
effort agreed to obey his orders and stick with him until total victory or 
death. The fight was always for a specific purpose stated beforehand. 

When not participating in such a warrior band, individuals felt free to 
fight each other, so long as it was a fair fight. With such readiness to 
fight, all the dastards, and all who tried underhanded methods to gain 
their ends, were bred out from among the people. Those who remained 
were so dependably well-behaved that it was the custom to give any 
stranger who asked for it a night's lodging and share one's food with 

A contrast can be pointed up by recalling that Jesus found it 
necessary to advocate love for one's fellow beings among the Jews. The 
Jews restrained individuals from killing the unscrupulous among 
themselves; instead, they gave an evolutionary preference to those 
"whited sepulchers" who used "legal" means — that is to say, group 
force — to destroy individuals who were not legal-minded. 

The way of life based on individual sovereignty did not propagate the 
unlovable. But it also did not propagate fierce fighters exclusiviely. 
There were always some who had no fighting temperament, who had a 
temperament only for gardening, poetry, music, caring for animals, and 
such things. If they did not try to replace fair fights with word-control 
— aimed at underhanded scheming for group or "legal" dominance — 
they were usually shielded by someone ready to protect them from 
challenges made by the overaggressive. This bred out the 
overaggressive at the same time that it perpetuated the sensitive — 
those who lived under the protection of another's shield. Early 
"civilized" observers remarked about the strangeness of such 
relationships. The one under whose 


shield the sensitive lived did not treat them as "civilized" peoples 
treated their slaves. Obviously the one shielding others could have 
called attention to his "authority" over them. Instead, having no 
"obligation" to protect them, but protecting by personal choice, he 
treated them as if they were simply additional cherished members 
of his own family. 

A German woman, who usually chose not to fight, balanced a 
man's ready use of the sword by cherishing and preserving what 
seemed good to her. Of course, she chose her mate for many varied 
characteristics but an important one was perception. If the man's 
perception was evident, then a woman could love and honor her 
mate, who destroyed what did not seem good in his opinion. A man 
recognized that a woman's judgment, in what she chose to preserve 
and cherish, had less pressure on it than his own; and it might 
therefore be much better. Accordingly, a man listened to and 
respected the opinions of the woman he loved almost as if she were 
a goddess. 

Families never lived in compact villages; each family always lived 
out of sight of any other. Because of this the Germans were pro- 
bably much closer to nature than the American Indians, and looked 
upon nature with even more reverence. 

However, the difference that I want to emphasize between In- 
dians and Germans, who were both close to nature, is this: The In- 
dians had no conscious thought patterns designed to provide a 
defense against group tyranny. The Germans did. They were close 
to and fully conscious of the serpent-peoples around the Mediterra- 
nean. What the Bible usually speaks of as serpent, they called 
dragon, serpent, worm, or giant, depending on their attitude 
toward it. But they would tolerate no encroachment, neither of the 
semi-organism, nor of the thought patterns that produced and 
maintained it. The hero-stories which they kept alive dealt with a 
Siegfried killing dragons. Dragons or serpents were not to be 
tolerated. One could voluntarily give up individual sovereignty — 
temporarily — while following a leader in a worthwhile fight, but 
no German would allow his personal sovereignty to be taken from 

The thought pattern of the Greeks had come from this source 
and they had compromised it slowly, bit by bit, while trying to deal 
with those committed to the ways of the serpent. After centuries of 
such compromise, the Greeks still had recognized the eternal truth 
in both the teachings and the life and death of Jesus. They had seen 
Jesus asd a discrete, crystal clear incarnation of the universal 
creative intelligence. 


If the Greeks, after their centuries of compromise, could still 
recognize the god-aspect of Jesus, then certainly the Germans, who had 
never compromised, could not fail to recognize it. It might be said that 
the Germans were Christians before there was a Christ, or it might be 
said that Christ was a German carrying their message to the Jews. 
However it is put, the thought patterns were the same. 

And so we now look, not at one man, Jesus, in conflict with a 
serpent-making people, but at a serpent encroaching on a whole, well- 
established, formidable people, whose way of life was what Jesus 


During the life of Jesus, the finest armies of the old Roman Empire 
tried to invade the heartland of the Germans. They were totally defeated 
and virtually destroyed. The Germans had recognized the invasion for 
what it was — an invasion by a dragon, giant, or serpent — a word- 
controlled semi-organism. The often repeated German stories told about 
the ability of these semi-organisms to take on various forms, for a giant 
to turn itself into a dragon or serpent, for instance, or even into 
something resembling a harmless toad. They could defend themselves 
against what they recognized. But from out of the "Christianized" 
Roman Empire, came a new form of serpent which the Germans did not 
recognize for what it was. 

The Catholic Church was evolved from one of the hundred or more 
sects calling themselves "Christian" — but its objective was not the 
kingdom of heaven that Jesus had pictured. It was the opposite. Its 
objective was the creation of a universal serpent. It did not advocate the 
holy spirit within an individual, as the one thing that must not be 
transgressed against. It advocated the opposite. It advocated obedience 
to the words of an "authority." Nothing in the life, death, and teachings 
of Jesus could support such a position, so the Church combined the 
"New Testament" life of Jesus and the "Old Testament" history, laws, 
and serpent-making practices of the Jews, into one inseparable "Holy" 

Jesus had described false teachers to whom he would say "Depart 
from me, ye that work iniquity. I never knew you." But he did not 
specifically describe what happened when the Jewish serpent-egg, 
calling itself "Christianity," was hatched in the throne room of the 
Roman Empire. The son of man was not lifted up to replace and 
eternally invalidate the serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness. 
The Catholic Church lifted up the son of man in an effort to confirm 
that the way of the serpent was "holy." The coin 


of the new "Christian" Roman Empire was never minted; but if it 
had been honestly presented, it would have had, on one side, Jesus 
hanging on the cross, and, on the other, the serpent lifted up by 

The Pope, and priests whose "authority" derived from the 
Pope's words, became the new universal serpent makers. Taking as 
their model the Jewish successes as recited in the Old Testament — 
they were careful to hide their intentions. They were careful not to 
show both sides of the new "Christianity" at the same time. 

The Roman Emperor had depended on a German guard for cen- 
turies and knew that, in the area called Germany, was a power une- 
qualled anywhere else. However, he knew there could be no frontal 
attack by an army. And he knew that the Germans were not easily 
fooled. They recognized all the old shapes of the word controlled 
semi-organisms — the dragon, the serpent, the worm, the giant, 
even the lone individual posing as a harmless toad. They would 
fight any encroachment on their individual sovereignty that they 
recognized. If the Germans were to be made a part of the universal 
serpent, it would have to be presented to them in a new masquerade 
that they would not recognize. Jesus, as presented in the kindly 
words of clever priests, was the form of the Church-serpent's mas- 

The teachings of Jesus were, of course, seen by the Germans as 
simply the revered and carefully perpetuated German ideas put into 
different words. The Germans, like the Greeks, could accept Jesus 
with full understanding. To them, the story of Jesus was the story 
of a stranger in a strange land — a stranger advocating German 
ideals to those who ridiculed, spit upon, and crucified him. And 
Jesus had died at the hands of these non-understanding people as 
bravely as any good German could hope to die. 

Subsequent followers of Jesus had also been known to face death 
with similar bravery. It is no surprise that Germans were easily 
enlisted in the armies of those who would fight on the side of Jesus 
and his followers against those who opposed and crucified them. 

The Franks, listened to the words of the priests. Then the 
Franks, overran, and took command of the Celts. The Celts had 
replaced their own gods and druids with the pantheon of Roman 
gods that had come along with Roman civilization. The multiple- 
god religion had been one of the customs forced upon them by the 
armies of the Caesars before the Roman Empire became an Empire 
controlled by the Pope. The Celts were already accustomed to 
changing gods. More important they were accustomed to the ways 
of the serpents — and had come to accept serpent ways as part of 



The Franks uprooted the outmoded Roman pantheon in favor of what 
the Pope called "Christianity;" they stopped the spread of Islam at the 
Pyrenees; they even went into Spain and destroyed some of those who 
were spreading Islam over that area. Spain soon became part of the 
Catholic serpent. 

The Pope, however, knew that the real power of Europe was in the 
heartland of Germany, where the Angles, Saxons, Scandinavians, and 
other German tribes lived with nature, and had no group-gods, simply to 
be overthrown and replaced by new ones. These people had never 
recognized any word orders that an individual would obey, if he had not 
voluntarily agreed to do so — and voluntarily meant while he was fully 
armed and had the option of defending the voice in the depths of his 
being in a fair fight. These people readily accepted the simple story of 
Jesus. But even the cleverest and most personable priests were having 
trouble getting most of them to accept the Pope's "authoritative" 
misinterpretations of the words of Jesus. The opposition to Catholic 
"Christianity" was that the Germans could accept one side of the coin 
but not the other. 

The Pope sought a strategy for harnessing the enormous power in 
these people. He looked for a weakness that he could manipulate. He 
found it. He found a German king committed to the basic morality 
advocated by Jesus, and ready to promote it — with a fervor that might 
cloud perception. 

The Frankish king, who was helping to create the Roman-"Christian"- 
serpent, was Charlemagne. We lack full knowledge of Charlemagne's 
thought patterns but the Pope (obviously using different words from 
these that present spirit more accurately than bare facts) took him to a 
high place and pointed out the entire area over which he had command. 
Then he pointed also to the area of Germany, where the people were 
unimpresed by mere words. In effect, the Pope said to Charlemagne, 
"All this will I give you, if you will fall down and worship the Catholic 
Church and its god, from whom I have absolute authority over the entire 
earth." Charlemagne was ready to fight for Jesus, but he lacked the 
wisdom that Jesus had shown in a similar circumstance. Charlemagne 
fell on his knees, and was crowned "King by the grace of god" over the 
"Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." It was nothing but words. 

As a battle leader, Charlemagne had so much on his mind that he had 
no time for any knowledge of Christianity but the simple picture of 
Jesus — who no good German would hesitate to advocate 


and defend. But those who took time to go into the teachings of the 
Church more fully glimpsed the flip side of the coin. For the direction of 
their lives, they were given the priest's version of the Ten 
Commandments of Moses and other "authorized" misinterpretations of 
the "words of god." 

Most of the basic Ten Commandments seemed merely a statement of 
German thought and custom. The first three were axiomatic if the word 
"god" was interpreted as meaning the creative intelligence of the 
universe, instead of the group-god of the Jews. The priest gave that 
misinterpretation. The fourth, with regard to resting on the Sabbath, was 
meaningless to a non-slave people; but there was no objection. 
Honoring father and mother, whether or not worthy of honor, was hard 
to swallow, but it was largely academic; those unworthy of honor had 
long ago been bred out by the use of the sword. "Thou shalt not steal" 
and "Thou shalt not covet" were meaningless among people who had no 
land ownership, built no elaborate houses, and measured a man's stature 
by his heroism, not by his possessions. As translated into the thought 
patterns of the Germans "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou 
shalt not bear false witness" were axiomatic. But "Thou shalt not kill" 
was obviously ridiculous. Not to kill would upset the evolution of 
heroes, and the world would become cluttered with dastards and 
underhanded schemers. Mohammed had recognized immediately, and 
Moses had recognized as soon as the Jews were outside Egypt, where 
there might be some question regarding which Jews should be killed, 
that killing was the basic point in creating a serpent. To create a serpent, 
the power over life and death had to be tied to a word-trigger — killing 
had to ordered by an "authority." It was on this point that the Germans 
balked at accepting the other side of the coin. When told that, not the 
holy spirit within them, but the voice of the Church speaking in words 
would decide who should live and who should die, they rejected a 
"Christianity" that had such a provision. 

On the initial attempt to make people accept a commandment "Thou 
shalt not kill" (EXCEPT when ordered to kill by words from an 
"authority) Moses ordered 3,000 killed. On his first attempt to impose 
the same "Thou shalt not kill" commandment on the Saxons, 
Charlemagne had 20,000 killed. But that was only the beginning. Such 
mass killings went on for centuries. 

Warriors killing warriors, who refused to abdicate their individual 
sovereignty, was not the worst part of the killing. And that sort of 
killing would never have created the Catholic serpent. The power of the 
serpent is based on word control. Establishing word 


control takes time; but the Church was carefully organized to destroy 
old ideals by gradual perversion. 

The hilt of every sword was made into a cross; Jesus was made into a 
group-god. Fair fight was made into a ridiculous exhibition of two men 
dueling, while a priest stood by blessing the fight with a prayer "God 
protect the right." Knights, appointed by an "authority," became a 
special class, having conspicuous prestige by reason of words spoken 
by an "authority," and wearing such elaborate armor that they required 
servants to attend them. 

Still worse was to come. 

After a few centuries, during which leaders, holding a position of 
king, duke, mayor, et cetera, "by the grace of god," killed off everyone 
who would not accept a commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (EXCEPT 
when ordered to kill by words from an "authority) word control had 
become sufficiently effective for the priests to make that control 

The priests developed systems for dramatically demonstrating that 
the Church alone held the keys to what would be bound and loosed. The 
Church now claimed to have such keys not only from Jesus, via Peter, 
but also from the holy spirit. 

The Church set out to control the innermost thoughts of every in- 
dividual. The priests interpreted the holy spirit as a sort of vague third 
part of a three part complex — god, son, and holy spirit. The kingdon of 
god and the whole complex was presented as something external; 
nothing came from within the depths of one's being. Obedience to the 
holy spirit was presented to the people as obedience to words written in 
a book and interpreted by those having "authority" to interpret. Babies 
were required to be baptized as "parts" of the growing Church-serpent 
as soon as born. Church schools were set up to teach children what 
words must replace their innate thoughts. The spirit within any 
individual who questioned the words and thoughts "authorized" by the 
Church was branded "an evil spirit." 

After a few generations, most people dared not have a thought that 
had not come to them in "authorized" words. Other thoughts were 
called superstitious "heresy." 

Contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who declared that transgression 
against the holy spirit within the individual, and that only, could result 
in damnation, Catholic "Christianity" declared that the "heresy" of 
listening to that inner voice was the one unforgivable sin. 

All were taught that it was "sinful" not to report any suspicion of 
such "heresy" and, based on suspicion, the priests held inquisi- 


tions for the accused. Those who defended the suspected heretic were, 
for that reason, also deemed heretics. 

Torture to gain confession was unbelievably cruel. Punishments were 
usually public burnings as warnings to others. But the most burning 
punishment was the confusion of tortured thoughts in the minds of the 
living — those who really believed the words of the priests. 

By the time America was discovered, the power of this sort of 
"Christianity" was so great that no one even thought of listening to a 
holy spirit within. No one dared think of anything except how to 
interpret the words of the Bible — a Christian Bible and a Jewish Bible 
in diametrical opposition, all combined into one book — and presented 
as words that overruled the holy spirit within. 

The entire world of Europe, England, and Scandinavia was a literal 
hell, "where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 


In the early part of the sixteenth century the "authority" of the Pope 
was challenged and broken in two places. Henry VIII of England defied 
the Pope, broke away from the Church of Rome, and set up a separate 
Church of England. Martin Luther, in the heartland of ancient Germany, 
defied the Pope, and set up a following of those who insisted on reading 
the Bible for themselves. Neither of these breaks resulted in immediate 
improvement. Perception had already been mutilated almost to total 

It had been centuries since anyone had dared to have a thought that 
was not words quoted from the self-contradicting Judaeo-Christian 
Bible, as interpreted by the priest. For sufficient contribution to the 
church the priest would promise to get the souls of the dead out of 
purgatory and into heaven, but living individuals had lost their souls. 
Forced away from their pre-history commitment to individualism, the 
great majority of all descendants of the Germans and related people had 
come to think of themselves as "parts" of the Catholic serpent. If some 
were separated from the "whole," as was now happening, they had been 
pre-conditioned to look for a new "authority." From the pattern set by 
the Greek serpent, a faint hint that "civil authority" was different from 
"church authority" had continued all along. The civil now seemed like a 
possible path for escaping the tyranny of the churches. 

However the civil, as all had been conditioned to think of it, was 
another serpent, and the distinction was mostly words. It seemed 


different only because words had become all important. People had 
come to live in a world of words; the civil-church word distinction had 
been perpetuated all along because it was an expedient used to 
camouflage realities. In the inquisitions, the priests turned the heretics 
over to civil "authorities" to be burned after the church had called them 
guilty. Anyone who refused to carry out the church's orders was burned 
as a heretic; so the church exercised full "authority" over the civil. The 
civil dared not take other than previously "authorized" routine actions; 
all significant matters were designated "religious." 

Still something was happening. Without wishing to do so, the church 
was teaching the "civil authorities" the serpent-making ways as used by 
the church. The subordinate civil administrators, holding their positions 
only "by the grace of god," became serpent makers themselves. They 
began maneuvering against popes and priests. They had learned the 
serpent way so thoroughly that it seemed the only way. Sometimes the 
state serpent became dominate over the church serpent. 

What was now happening was simply that the universal church 
serpent had begun to divide and become civil and church, civil and 
civil, church and church. The distinctions were not significant. All were 
similar centers of "authority" over individuals who had been word- 
conditioned. Individuals had come to think of themselves as "parts" of 
some semi-organism. Whatever the source of "authority," all individuals 
now required words to direct their actions. The way of serpents had 
become the only way of life. All resistance to the serpent way had been 
fully destroyed. 

Those in positions of "authority" had come to like the power and 
false prestige that went with simply using words to control a semi- 
organism. And the cell-like "parts," called "citizens" in the state serpent, 
had come to look for an "authority" — for something outside 
themselves to "preserve order." They had been brainwashed by priests 
to denounce the three billion year old order of the universe as immoral. 

Among these brainwashed people, there was no revolt against the 
serpent-pseudo-morality, no revolt against the false morality that the 
individual should be subordinated to the "good of the group." There was 
no longer any thought of individual sovereignty. Speaking Biblical 
language, the serpent had been held up instead of the son of man. 
Speaking German traditions, no one now thought of fighting the dragon. 

Even as words had taken over thought, new meanings for words had 
taken over old meanings, and changed stories had taken over 


the old remembered stories. Some of the "authorized" interpreta- 
tions often destroyed or completely reversed the meaning of ancient 
words. The church that had decreed an individual's reverence for 
the holy spirit within oneself was "heresy," had also made the 
Jewish advocacy of serpent ways a part of the "Christian" Bible 
and taught people that the ways of the serpent were "holy." This 
had required abandoning the use of the word "serpent" as a sym- 
bol for "body politic" and giving new interpretations of the word 
in various passages of the Bible. In places it meant interpreting 
"serpent" as referring to a strangely magical biological reptile but, 
where necessary, even that had been done. 

Also the word "dragon" had been dealt with so as to effectively 
destroy the meaning of the word, itself, along with the thought pat- 
tern which had been associated with that meaning. The hypocritical 
method that had been used for doing this is now familiar because 
everyone now knows the story of Joan of Arc, whom the church 
had burned for sorcery in 1431 and then made into a saint in 1920. 
The similar dragon story, which follows, is less familiar and will 
stand retelling, because it includes the total reversal of a word 

About three hundred years after Jesus there were a hundred or 
more groups, all calling themselves "Christian," who were strongly 
opposing each other. Some of these groups — including the one 
that became the Catholic Church — were turning the words of 
Jesus into a serpent-making religion, and competing with each 
other for the Emperor's approval. Others were fighting against 
such corruption of Christianity — fighting against serpents or 
dragons no matter what their facade. Among these was a soldier 
named George, who was strongly Christian. George gained a wide 
reputation as the "Dragon Slayer." In 303 AD he was captured, 
tortured, and killed by the Emperor Diocletian. After the details on 
which George's reputation rested had been thoroughly twisted or 
obscured, the Catholic Church, which had become the "authorized 
Christian Church," led peoples to believe that all early Christians, 
including George, had been Catholic. It then gave out the 
"authorized" interpretation that "dragon" meant "the evil that 
opposes the church." Since it would have been "heresy" to insist 
on the original meaning of dragon, the church simply claimed a 
folk hero; it made George into "Saint George the Dragon Slayer." 
In time, word conditioned people forgot that real flesh-and-blood 
soldiers never fight against fairy tale dragons or abstracts. When 
words can twist how conditioned people see realities, it is no pro- 
blem to twist how they see words. 


The people, who could now read the Bible for themselves, had been 
fully pre-conditioned to misinterpret it. The teachings of Jesus, that had 
been readily accepted as being in full agreement with the people's 
Saxon-forest-heritage, had been deprived of their clear meaning. Any 
clarified understanding would now have to come from within. 

But the inquisitions had done their work. Very few now remained 
who, with any confidence, could accept the holy spirit within 


A century after King Henry VIII and Martin Luther had made 
successful breaks from the "authority" of the Pope, many new religious 
sects developed, but the matters on which they differed from the 
Catholic Church did not go to the heart of things; none dared make the 
necessary break between the New Testament, upholding the son of man, 
and the Old Testament, upholding the serpent. Like the Catholic 
Church, the new sects were serpent-making groups, each jealous of 
other serpent-making groups, and each controlled by a leader, giving an 
"authoritative" interpretation of the self-contradicting Bible for the 
direction of the group. 

Some of these people began to seek a new life in America, where the 
native Indians, although lacking the conscious commitment to 
individual sovereignty that the colonist's ancestors had known in the 
Saxon forests, were fairly close to the holy spirit within themselves; at 
least no deliberately organized word-conditioning was separating them 
from natural reality. Certainly the Indians were in much closer touch 
with the spirit within them than were the northern European 
immigrants. These immigrants, who were our ancestors, were just 
beginning to look for a way back through the word labyrinth laid down 
by centuries of the thought conditioning to which they had been 
subjected. The effectiveness of that conditioning was glaringly evident 
in their actions. No longer remembering what had been done to their 
own ancestors, they did substantially the same thing to the native 

To dwell on how the word-conditioned northern Europeans now tried 
to impose their own conditioning on the native Indians would simply be 
to retell a story very similar to the European version. The main 
difference was this: The Romans had recognized the German tribes as 
the greatest power in Europe. The invading colonists saw the Indian 
tribes as being a much lesser power than the invaders, themselves. They 
felt that trying to make use of the Indians would be more trouble than 
destroying them. So the "civilized" butcher- 


ing of "barbarians," who would not accept a commandment 
"Thou shalt not kill" (EXCEPT when ordered to do so by an 
"authority"), was so similar to what had happened to their own 
ancestors in Europe that no significant new aspects developed. The 
colonist's lack of perception would be an almost unbelievable thing 
to contemplate, if the same lack of perception did not still exist in 
plentiful evidence. They were destroying in others the very thing 
they were floundering to rediscover in themselves — when they 
could, instead, have relearned from the Indians something about 
the holy spirit which in themselves had, for many generations, been 
buried under the words of priests. 

Even while they were killing the Indians, an unrecognized help 
for them was being provided by those they were killing. Because the 
Indians had always treated it with reverence, the natural world in 
America was still in harmony with the universal creative in- 
telligence. It was this that helped the colonists recover their bear- 

The voice within themselves had been silenced, but the voice of 
manifest reality spoke with the same clear, profound eloquence 
that humans had listened to before human words had drowned out 
its message — before words had become all that held their attention 
and filled their thoughts. The colonists from Europe, like people 
removed from an insane asylum and set down in a natural 
wilderness, began to show the human animal's recuperative 
powers. During the first hundred and fifty years there were some 
indications that the contact with nature might fit them to lead the 
whole human species back to sanity. 

One of the first significant advances was made by Roger 
Williams. As a perceptive individual, Williams demonstrated the 
meaning of the symbolic keys given Peter by Jesus; he declared that 
every individual's view about the universal creative intelligence was 
a matter of conscience. He proclaimed that no one could have any 
position of "authority" over what another "should" believe. He 
established the first Baptist church within the area that was later to 
be designated the United States. 

Each individual Baptist church was conceived as being composed 
simply of those with like beliefs who voluntarily came together; the 
church had no "authority" over its individual members; the pastor 
of each had no "authority"; he was chosen and/or "ordained" by 
those who wanted him to conduct the services; there was no infant 
baptism; membership in the church was a voluntary decision of 
those old enough to think for themselves and make their own deci- 
sions. This would become the non-Catholic church that was chosen 


by the greatest number of people in what would be called the 
United States — first, those descended from the tribes of Germany, 
and later, also, those descended from the tribes of Africa. 

Sometime later, in the British Isles, John Wesley would start a 
society advocating similar freedom of individual conscience. The 
Wesleyan society would evolve into what would be called the 
Methodist church, with the second largest non-Catholic member- 
ship in the area called the United States. 

Roger William's declaration stands as the first monument, mark- 
ing the way back to individual sovereignty. He proclaimed again 
the eternal truth that nothing must be allowed to overrule the holy 
spirit of the universal creative intelligence in each individual. 

The next monument to the sacredness of individual integrity was 
set by Thomas Jefferson about a hundred years later. In the 
Declaration of Independence, he proclaimed the individual's 
freedom of action. He proclaimed it to be self-evident that all are 
created free and equal (all are born sovereign individuals) and that 
it is the right, and duty, of individuals to alter or abolish any 
government that ceases to promote every individual's innate 

Unlike the Jews, who for three thousand years had been 
celebrating with pride their serpent-making skills as displayed in 
Egypt — and, unlike the officials of the Catholic Church, who rose 
to positions of power by demonstrating their skills in serpent mak- 
ing — most of the colonists had no more comprehension of the 
ways of serpent makers than the American Indians. For a thousand 
years they had been nothing but pawns in the hands of organized 
manipulators. Even the basic words by which they had once com- 
municated their thoughts had been mutilated and made mean- 
ingless. Their "mythology" had been either twisted backwards or 
fully destroyed. They no longer consciously recognized that the 
basis of all tyranny is word control. They no longer recognized that 
the power of a tyrannical king is always based on a word-controlled 
potential mob. They no longer even had a clearly understood 
descriptive word for the word-controlled semi-organism that tyran- 
nizes over individuals. 

But they did recognize the ultimate product of word control 
when it had become active tyranny. They rallied against a clear and 
present tyranny, and broke away from their European ties. 

Then, floundering away from a tyranny that they did recognize, 
they set up a civil semi-organism, after the Greek model, with the 
same illusions that the Greeks had never dispelled. However, it con- 
tained one highly significant improvement. 


Like the freedom of conscience declared by Roger Williams, and like 
the freedom of action declared by Jefferson, the Constitution of the 
United States became a clear monument to individual sovereignty when 
the Bill of Rights was attached to it. The Bill of Rights protected 
individuals from the government, itself — from the serpent. 

Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson had set up the highest 
monuments to the worth of the individual since the life, death, and 
teachings of Jesus. The colonists had shown their understanding, they 
had accepted the monuments as marking the path they were groping for, 
and, by insisting that the Bill of Rights be attached to the Constitution, 
they had set up another monument — one that said to the serpent: "This 
far shall you go and no farther." By doing this, they showed that their 
heritage from the Saxon forest was still not entirely destroyed; a trace of 
the word-mutilated thought and behavior pattern still persisted. 

The resurfacing of these long-buried thought patterns enabled them to 
hear the word-overruled voice of the holy spirit within themselves 
clearly enough to choose the Jesus side of the coin the priests had 
passed on to them — and to become at least a little suspicious of the 
side with the serpent on it. Thomas Jefferson was so clear on his 
position that he wanted to go farther than cutting the Old Testament 
away from the teachings of Jesus; he saw the writings of Paul as a 
corrupting influence; he wanted to detach them and let the teachings of 
Jesus stand alone in their full, uncon-fused significance. 


When, two or three centuries ago, men like Roger Williams and 
Thomas Jefferson were not being tortured and killed by serpent makers 
— when, instead, they were being cheered by millions, it might be 
expected that Americans had clearly taken the road toward 
individualism, and the way of the serpent would be discarded by now. 
Not so. 

No new monuments have been set. The first three monuments, 
marking the way to individualism, stand on paths that have ceased to be 
used. The revered memory of them is subjected to the degradation of 
hypocritical oratory by serpent makers, who try to use them as 
instruments of word control. Such serpent makers have always tried to 
make use of everything the people cherished. It is their way. It is to be 
expected. The strange thing is that millions of people who are repulsed 
by the condition have tolerated it. That 


puzzle has to have an answer. 

There had been cheering for the words of Williams and Jeffer- 
son, but the Saxon forest sounds of individual sovereigns clanging 
swords against shields to approve proposed action seemed far off 
to those who only cheered brave words with empty hands. For too 
many centuries they had been conditioned to think of themselves as 
"parts" of a word controlled group. Most of them would no longer 
have been sufficiently in tune with the holy spirit within themselves 
to have acted wisely as sovereign individuals, even if they had 
thought it was desirable. The labyrinth of word conditioning would 
need to be examined before it could be known well enough to be 
removed, before remembered words no longer stopped the voice 
within from coming through in full clarity. But time did not allow 
for full examination. In America things moved too fast. 

Even before the old was removed, a new labyrinth of word con- 
trol was being thrown up. A bureaucratic serpent — a sort of 
Frankenstein monster — would replace the word control of the 
Catholic serpent. 

From the very beginning, new serpent makers began to take over 
the civil government called the United States. The old Greek system 
of government, giving a few in elected positions the "authority" to 
make laws binding on everyone else, was an open invitation for ser- 
pent makers to seek those positions. They got them. They made 
laws in such profusion that individuals became bogged down in the 
"legal" morass. Individuals even had to depend on "authorities" to 
interpret the confused word garbage called "law." Tocqueville 
pointed out that tyranny was equally oppressive whether the tyran- 
nical yoke being placed on the individual was held out by a lone 
monarch or the million hands of a majority. Yet the people did not 

If two hundred years ago, circumstances had required the col- 
onists to face the problem they had created, it might have been easi- 
ly solved; the serpent had not grown to monstrous size. At that time 
it would have been necessary only to make unmistakably clear the 
command to the serpent: This far you go and no farther. But it was 
left alone and allowed to grow. 

The new breed of serpent makers were inexperienced. At first, 
they were very cautious. The tyranny of the word-manipulated ma- 
jority was slow in developing. Also there were two things which 
distracted the people's attention from what was happening: (1) 
Open land, and, (2) an illusion regarding the function of money 
that required more careful examination than eager pioneers had 
time for. 


The most easily understandable distraction was open land. If one 
did not like what was happening, he could "go west." In the ex- 
panse of forest, rivers, broad plains, and mountains — all having 
only a few scattered humans — one could feel a direct relationship 
being rebuilt between oneself and the total universe. One could 
even become lonely for, seek, and love one's neighbors. In that ex- 
panse of undisturbed nature one could believe that he truly lived in 
a land of the free and a home of the brave. 

Money, which contained the other distraction, is a difficult thing 
to talk about with any clarity. The very word "money" is almost as 
difficult to use as the word "god." Like the meaning of the word 
"god," the meaning of the word "money" has also been 
deliberately distorted by serpent makers. 

Because "money," the word itself, is not considered sacred, as 
the very word "god" is considered sacred by millions of people, 
much discussion has gone on regarding the point where money 
ceases to be a medium of exchange — where it becomes something 
radically different. The word "capital" suggests money that is not 
a simple medium of exchange, but that word has been given various 
confused and confusing definitions — and has been used with emo- 
tional connotations by serpent makers, who combine the term 
"capitalistic society" with a tirade of shibboleths and meaningless 
jargon. The word "capital" continues to have meaning in the sense 
that it is used by accountants; otherwise it cannot be used for in- 
telligent discussion. 

Because money that functions as a medium of exchange is 
physically indistinguishable from money that is not a simple 
medium of exchange, I prefer to use the one word when talking of 
money's two different aspects. However, I will try to distinguish 
the aspects by using modifiers. 

Money is a physical thing, usually a piece of paper, that 
represents a measurable quantity of: (1) Some specific tangible 
thing having intrinsic value, or (2) the power to commandeer, by 
taxation, tangible things having intrinsic value. 

The power to commandeer ties money to the way of the serpent 
— to "authority." The two aspects of money are indistinguishable 
in money as a physical thing. The physical money is an order, 
generally accepted at face value when presented by any anonymous 
bearer. The anonymity of the bearer is a highly significant factor. 

As most people deal with it, money is a simple medium of ex- 
change. It saves moving bulky items around for barter, and it can 
be used to get work performed or have services rendered without 
considering the specific items involved in the barter. 


Money — that is physically indistinguishable from that used as a 
medium of exchange — can be measurable quantity of a serpent's 
word-created "authority." Because the physical money has no ob- 
vious connection to word-control, it provides a method for secretly 
using an existing serpent's power without the purpose or results be- 
ing identified with the manipulator. 

Money secretly used to control or promote recognized serpents 
(including the enemies of those whose "tax-money" is being used), 
money used to create new serpents in secret, or money secretly used 
to promote obscure existing ones until they suddenly show their 
power — these are the "authority" aspects of money that concern 
us. Money is no longer a simple medium of exchange when it is 
secretly combined with serpent practices — when it has an under- 
cover connection with word control. 

Money, which is openly identified with the "authority" using it, 
is a simple medium of exchange. The Roman Emperor depended on 
German soldiers — called mercenaries — who were paid with 
money. All nation-states pay their soldiers and call them 
"professionals." It is not this open use of paid soldiers, whatever 
they are called, that is the use of money as "authority." The out-in- 
the-open "authority" dominates the "authority" of money to the 
point where the "authority" aspect of money is insignificant. 

When military organizations are visible, "authority" is clearly 
defined, carefully measured, and identified with its source. The 
stripes of a corporal or sergeant, the bars of a lieutenant or captain, 
the eagle of a colonel, and the stars of a general are openly 
displayed measures of "authority." When the military organiza- 
tion is visible, the ultimate source of "authority" is the identified 
serpent having word control. It can be seen and judged as a thing 
out in the open. 

Measured amounts of money can become the camouflaged 
emblems of "authority" for a secret detachment of "soldiers" who 
wear no identifying uniforms. Money can replace openly displayed 
stripes, bars, eagles and stars with hundreds, thousands, millions, 
billions of dollars that are never seen. Or, if the physical money is 
seen, the "authority" is still camouflaged, because the money is the 
same physical thing that is used as a simple medium of exchange. 

Nation-states allow no one with great quantities of money openly 
to maintain a private army. However serpents, organized on the 
"authority" of money, can infiltrate, exist within, or completely 
take over, an openly identified semi-organism. The existence of 
some of these is known; others are created and operate in total 
secrecy, or fully camouflaged by a facade that appears harmless. 


In the minds of present day American people, the "Mafia" is 
such a hidden serpent. Whether it actually exists or does not exist 
and, if it does exist, how big and powerful it may be, is not a point 
to dwell on here. For the purpose of example, it is enough that the 
"Mafia" is a commonly held idea. The Mafia-idea illustrates the 
fact that money makes possible an unseen serpent of enormous 

However, the most dangerous unseen serpents operate under 
some "legal" facade. Under such a facade, they easily tie in with 
direct word control, and the line between "legal" and "not legal" 
becomes a constantly shifting one. The unseen serpent-makers use 
the "authority" of money to turn "legal" into "not legal" — and 
"not legal " into "legal." As used by already existing serpents 
operating under cover, or by the makers of new serpents, the 
"authority" of money not only defeats law enforcement, it makes 
laws and removes laws. 

"Laws" were originally thought of as coming from a group-god. 
Jesus condemned the elaborate laws, and the hair-splitting law in- 
terpretations that characterized the Jews. He chose to do this 
without giving them sufficient reasons to crucify him, until he 
decided that the time was right. The Jews, who have always known 
and used the serpent-making aspect of money, tried to get Jesus to 
tangle himself up in a discussion of money as "authority," but he 
avoided their efforts in that direction. One of his followers did say 
that "the love of money is the root of all evil." 1 Timothy 6:10. But 
Timothy did not elaborate on the "evil" of money; he just implied 
that it was a distraction. He seems to have been concerned with the 
distracting products of "civilization" for which money can be ex- 
changed, not with the distraction in money itself. 

In America there was, and still is, a distraction in money, itself. 
This distraction results from failure to examine closely the 
"authority" aspect of money. It is obvious that hundreds, 
thousands, millions, billions of dollars can function as the stripes, 
bars, eagles, and stars of a secret army. It, therefore, seems logical 
to assume that enough money can function as sovereignty. The 
question that busy pioneers did not have time to fully examine was: 
What kind of sovereignty? 

The descendants of the northern Europeans who settled America 
were trying to get away from the "government" — from a syn- 
thetic group-sovereignty. Some simply went "out west." Others 
had the illusion that they could regain their individual sovereignty 
through money — gold, land, or whatever. They chased money 
with the illusion that enough money could have a value — other 


than a medium of exchange — that it cannot have. 

Freedom cannot be bought by money that is a medium of ex- 
change. And individual freedom is something which money as 
"authority" cannot insure. Money as "authority" is useful only for 
secret serpent making. The illusion that its "authority" could bring 
individual freedom was a distraction that blinded many to what the 
serpent makers were doing. Many hugged the pleasant illusion that 
building an individual fortune was regaining individual sovereignty. 
Hugging that illusion, they failed to look at what was happening to 
themselves, who were successfully piling up "wealth," as well as 
to everyone else. 

We still have a long way to go before we regain the wisdom that 
was buried along with our ancient "dragon mythology." 

Our ancestors, the early northern Europeans, refused to use 
money. We do not know whether they remembered from past ex- 
periences their reasons for this or were just following an ancient 
taboo; we simply know the facts are true. The "taboo" was known 
to have existed in Europe in prehistory times. 

Lycurgus, the real or fictional first ruler of the Greeks, insisted 
that money be made of bulky material for two reasons: (1) No one 
would want to accumulate much of it; and, (2) it could not be moved 
about without the movement becoming conspicuous. This 
prehistory European attitude toward money has come down to us 
in detail through the writings of Plutarch. 

When clearly seen, when one is not hugging a pleasant illusion, 
the "authority" aspect of money is "loved" only by serpent 
makers — legal, illegal, church, or civil. 


Money beyond one's needs can be used to make more money. 
Most of those, who were following the illusion that making money 
was regaining individual freedom, used their excess money to make 
still more, to aid their families or friends, or to help what they called 
"worthwhile charities." This "good" use of money inadvertently 
served as a smoke screen for the use of money as "authority" by 
serpent makers. At least it served as a smoke screen for those close 
enough to be impressed by this "good" use. 

Those outside the United States, looking at the "moat" in their 
brother's eye, while a "beam" was in their own, saw the people of 
the United States pursuing money with what appeared to be a fran- 
tic, single-minded purpose. Great expanses of land and mineral 
wealth were up for grabs and the activity was unquestionably frantic. 
From distant shores, it was difficult to distinguish between: (1) 


Those trying to get away from the serpent, (2) those chasing money 
with the illusion that it could restore individual freedom, and (3) 
those reaching for the serpent-making "authority" that exists in 

The initial semi-organism of the United States was created by 
those with a tradition of individual freedom, but for a thousand 
years the Catholic Church had been brainwashing them to submit 
to church "authority." The pseudo-morality of groupism had been 
forced upon them by the inquisitions. Without taking time to ex- 
plore the basis for the church-imposed pseudo-morality, they merely 
reacted to church dominance by following the Greek example of 
creating a clearly man-made civil "authority." Initially synthesiz- 
ing "law" from a conglomerate of human "wills," they left the 
way open for unlimited additional laws, Such a semi-organism is 
not only open to elected serpent-makers; it is also wide open to con- 
trol by hidden serpents or secret serpent makers using money as 

"Pork-barrel politics" — the appropriation of money ac- 
cumulated by general taxation in a way that will buy votes — was 
conspicuous from a very early time. Legislators, who participated 
in "money authority" schemes — that were much less conspicuous 
than standard pork-barrel politics — made so many laws, to favor 
so many undercover interests, that money to hire lawyers, or whole 
groups of lawyers, soon became the biggest factor in "legal" con- 
tests. It could win the contest or cause an indefinite delay that was 
tantamount to winning. Unscrupulous schemers had an open field 
to twist existing laws or simply pay to have new laws made as they 
wanted them. 

As competition among secret interests stiffened, serpent makers 
began moving into direct word control. Ostentatiously displaying a 
facade of aid to "free enterprise," advertising "agencies" evolved 
advertising into a highly sophisticated "discipline" of word- 
control, with the control often coming from camouflaged, or totally 
hidden sources. Politicians and bureaucracies became proficient in 
publicly proclaiming one thing, while promoting its opposite with 
tax money, and with complicated laws, carefully designed to 
confuse. Conspicuous examples are almost infinite. Their great 
number effectively serves to distract attention from, and to divide 
opposition to, the system, itself. 

To avoid distracting attention from the fact that the system, 
itself, is the problem, I want to cite no more details than necessary 
to serve as examples of word manipulation. The word "freedom" 
originally meant freedom to act, but the group's increased power 


over individuals is praised as providing individuals with freedom from 
want, freedom from fear, et cetera, even while new restrictive laws, or 
new interpretations of old laws, are depriving the individual of freedom 
to act for himself. A cabinet post, ostensibly established to promote 
construction of housing, is used to prevent individuals, and builders 
with the "wrong politics," from building "non-standard" housing — 
when "non-standard" is, of course, a term subject to arbitrary 
interpretation by the bureaucracies having "authority." In the name of 
aid to small businesses, a Small Business Bureau helps to selectively 
destroy small businesses by tangling them in red tape. A tax-supported 
National Endowment for the Arts propagandizes in favor of artistic 
freedom, while it secretly promotes control over art by those in 
government "positions." A branch of it, set up to aid small book 
publishers and small magazines, is used to discredit and help put some 
of them out of business. In the name of free speech and free press, the 
serpent-making "authority" of money, itself, is given a voice loud 
enough to drown out the voice of every ordinary individual. 
Hypocritical proclamations on national television networks — praising 
freedom of speech — drown out individual voices, and promote a 
system that requires millions of dollars to elect a candidate to a 
"position of authority," or to contest unconstitutional laws enforced by 

The undercover use of money as "authority" has now become a 
standard American way of life. A great number of fully functioning or 
embryonic undercover serpents, using money as "authority," are now 
competing for control of the United States. Newspapers, magazines, 
book publishing, movie-making, radio, and television are often chosen 
as their "legal" facades. These choices serve the undercover serpent- 
makers in two ways: (1) They provide the "legal" facades. (2) They 
give direct word control into the hands of the hidden serpents. Schools 
and colleges are the basic tools of word control over which undercover 
serpents, using money, compete for surreptitious dominance. Money as 
"authority" has become so fully accepted in the United States that the 
distinction between "legal" and "not legal" has virtually disappeared. 

Insane asylums are sometimes called snake pits. The term is ap- 
propriate. Individual insanity is the result of living in this sort of 
breeding ground for the group-semi-organisms called serpents. As long 
as there was sparsely settled land, those who came to America seeking 
to regain their individual sovereignty, kept pushing across the continent, 
in an attempt to keep ahead of the fast-following ser- 


pent culture. 

Before the continent was fully settled, what they were looking for 
had emerged as an ideal of heroic stature — heroic but hazy. It was 
that of the lone cowboy walking with slow, watchful, nerve-ready 
alertness into an unscrupulous gang of underhanded schemers, 
commonly called "sidewinders." There was a gun on his hip, and a 
will of his own was evident in his steady eyes. The whole world saw 
and admired. Everywhere the image awakened a long forgotten 
self. It was the American dream of freedom and human integrity 
personified. But the meaning of the heroic figure never reached full 
consciousness. The dream figure, born from the subconsciously 
remembered heritage of individual sovereignty, is now only twenty- 
one inches high on a big screen television. 


Money, as evolved from word control, and as a tool of word con- 
trol, distracts attention from basic reality. In the basic contest, 
whether between serpents and serpents, or between serpents and 
sovereign individuals, money is not a power of itself. The in- 
dividual human will is the basic power. The way of the serpent is to 
confuse that will, so as to make it subject to manipulation by words 
from an "authority." 

History as ordinarily written is the history of serpents, of na- 
tions, of fictitious entities. This is a different kind of history. The 
natural person, the basic source of human will, and the manipula- 
tion of that will, is human history as we are now looking at it. 

For untold centuries, the ancestors of the American colonists — 
the German tribes of northern Europe — had consciously opposed 
the way of the dragon or serpent. They were never overcome by a 
force outside themselves; they were tricked by clever priests into let- 
ting a camouflaged version of the serpent into their own thoughts. 
The verbal-serpent-eggs grew to produce serpents. 

The snake-pit developed other serpents than the Catholic 
Church. Gradually overthrowing the word-control exercised by the 
Pope, the German tribes in most areas formed state-serpents — 
Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, 
Belgium, France, Spain, the United States, Canada, et cetera. 

The last hold out was in the original heartland of the German 
tribes — roughly the area that is now called Germany. There the 
people resisted the control of each person's individual will by the 
"authority" of words to the last. When they could no longer hope 
to survive as individuals, they formed small local semi-organisms. 
The Church tried to mold these into a single unit, but, before the 


job was fully accomplished, the "Holy Roman Empire of the German 
Nation" became a name without "authority." 

The cities insisted on local autonomy. Autonomous agricultural 
groups were formed around fortified castles. Small military groups 
protected local areas resisting amalgamation. Well into the eighteenth 
century there were over seventeen hundred independent units. The 
United States had broken away from England, been divided by civil 
war, and subsequently reunited, before the independent units in the 
heartland of ancient Germany — holding out for local autonomy as the 
next best thing to individualism — were finally united into a single 
semi-organism — the Reich. 

The word "Reich" is significant. Unquestionably the semi-organism 
was the same sort of serpent or dragon against which Beowulf and 
Siegfried of legend had tried to offer an individual's defense — as the 
steady-eyed American cowboy had tried to stand against gangs that to 
him seemed evil. But "Reich" carried a cargo of connotations. 

Literally "Reich" simply translates into English as "rich." But the 
richness is not that of money. It is the memory of life in the forests, 
when coins were valued only for the engraved horse-drawn chariot on 
the mint stamp, and a goblet of gold was valued no higher than a good 
earthen vessel. Then there had been no law but the holy spirit within the 
individual. When the Hebrew commandment, against taking what 
Hebrew law said belonged to another, was imposed on the Germans by 
the priests, it could not be translated into the language of a people who 
had no property laws. It was translated: Thou shalt not steal — take by 

Stealth in human relations the Germans abhored. "Blood and iron" 
was the phrase used to designate the open, above-board opposition to 
unscrupulous schemers, that traditionally had bred out underhanded 
dastards, and created the rich life, where only those who loved their 
neighbors as themselves survived. Those who survived also shared a 
love of all nature equal to, or even greater than, love of human 
neighbors. Communion with nature had been to them communion with 
the creative intelligence of the universe. The priests had confused them 
and they fumbled for a new clarity. 

"Blood and iron" was the slogan of Bismarck, who brought together 
those who wanted to protect their richly remembered past — their 
Reich. To those for whom it recalled a time before the concept of 
ownership was introduced, Reich, although sometimes translated as 
"realm," spoke with more emotional power than could ever be 
suggested by "my own, my native land." "Reich" signified values that 
could no longer be expressed in any words or 


stories still available to the people. 

But in Germany, as in America, there were some who preferred to 
use underhanded methods to gain power over the wills of individuals — 
to manipulate people without bringing their ultimate objectives into the 

Concurrently with Bismarck's efforts to bring this last hold-out for 
local autonomy into a single power, there was another will at work in 
the same area. There was a Jew named Karl Marx, who had other plans 
for the Germans among whom he was born. Marx had other than 
German memories, and these other memories had been kept fresh by the 
Feast of the Passover, memories of workers poisoning the Pharaoh's 
cattle and then, after clever undercover planning, poisoning the first 
born in every Egyptian household. He wanted to gain power by inciting 
one portion of the Germans to sabotage the efforts of another portion, as 
Moses had turned the Jews against the Egyptians. But there was a 

The German agricultural workers, or serfs, did not hate the prince in 
the castle who protected them; they had a rich tradition of a leader rising 
in an open assembly and asking who would follow him in a needed 
fight. They saw their prince as an admirable leader. The same problem 
existed elsewhere. In the independent cities, the workmen formed guilds 
and were proud of their craftmanship. The guild emblems were crafted 
of beautifully wrought metal to display the workers' pride. The 
craftsmen were not a people of slave temperament hating a Pharaoh's 
power because they had no concept of leadership. It was their tradition 
that leaders led only after clearly announcing an objective, and that 
those who followed did so of their own free will. There was no word- 
created "position of leadership" — to be coveted because the "position" 
appeared prestigious. Therefore there was no ready made group of 
people who thought of themselves as "slaves" hating "masters." Marx 
set out to change things. 

Marx set out to create — by the use of words — the sort of situation 
celebrated in the Passover Feasts. He gathered around himself a 
following of workers incited to revolt against the "oppression" of their 

His efforts to sabotage the Reich were quickly discovered. Marx 
was exiled from the German area and also exiled from France. In 
London, with the editorial assistance of Friedrich Engels, he wrote 
The Communist Manifesto. It was a manual for international 
revolution, in which he called the international Pharaoh-type class 
the "bourgeoisie," and the international workers, that he wanted 
to lead as Moses had led the Jews, the "proletariat." He followed 


this with another book called Capital, in which, by a ridiculous 
misinterpretation of the meaning of money, he changed the names of 
the classes he had invented from "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" to 
"capital" and "labor." 

Judaeo-Communism was designed to secretly promote revolution, so 
that an undercover serpent, following the prototype of the Jews in 
Egypt, could swallow up all other embryonic serpents emerging during 
a revolutionary chaos. The pseudo-morality of communism was one 
hundred percent Jewish: The group would be everything; the individual 
would be "morally" obligated to submit to the group, "morally" 
obligated to become a mere "part," having no will other than the "good" 
of the group as a group. The fact that Judaeo-Communism was 
diametrically opposed to the connotations of "Reich" can be seen from 
the language of the Communist Manifesto that speaks of "rescuing" 
people from the "idiocy of rural life." 

It was over twenty years after the publication of the Communist 
Manifesto before the German Reich came into being in 1871. At that 
time, the followers of Karl Marx in Germany did not stage an open 
revolt. However, along with the Catholic Church, they continued to 
oppose the Reich. They waited for the time of planned chaos that would 
give them an opportunity to take over. 

In Germany before the first world war, there were three clear cut 
political parties: (1) A slightly modified communist party. (2) A party 
dominated by the Catholic Church. (3) A party dominated by the 
military. This third party was trying to preserve traditional individual 
freedom against the groupism of the communists and the Catholic 

The identity of the military and individualism in Germany needs to 
be understood. Military organization is openly based on suspension of 
individualism for the duration of a fight and while in preparatory 
training for a fight. It is formal, carefully-planned action control. This 
action control differs radically from surreptitious thought control by 
words. Military action openly states the purpose to be accomplished; 
after that, action control has no criterion but efficacy in accomplishing 
the stated purpose. 

In Germany, at the time of World War I, the military was supporting 
the ideal of traditional individual sovereignty against the Catholic 
Church and against communism. However, the Americans were shown 
pictures of their German-speaking cousins marching in precise columns 
and told that these last people to relinquish their individual sovereignty 
were innately committed to the sort of group-pseudo-morality they 
were actually fighting. Within 


historical times, we all had the same ancestors; but the demagogs 
loudly proclaimed that the Germans were a peculiar "race" — 
radically different from freedom loving peoples. The propaganda 
said that the Germans — as a "race" — had to be beaten into sub- 
mission "to make the world safe for democracy." 


Like the Indian tribes of America, the German tribes, scattered 
over the world, destroyed their original way of life by their inability 
to see exactly what was happening — and by fighting each other. 
The misunderstandings and fights between German-speaking Ger- 
mans and their Scandinavian and English-speaking cousins, were, 
of course, itensified when all had accepted the way of serpents. 
Then the new serpent-makers used words to bury — still more 
deeply than the Catholic Church had already buried it — the 
innate-morality-become-custom that had once been the common 
heritage of all. 

The remaining traces of the old thought patterns, which the new 
serpent-makers could not completely bury, they distorted into 
division-creating sophistries. During World War I, they wove 
words about monarchy and democracy into a garbled caricature of 
the real issue between groupism and individualism. Their purpose 
of creating a confusion, that could be manipulated into a word- 
designated division, was fully accomplished. 

The real issue has not yet been allowed to surface. It is not be- 
tween serpent and serpent. It is between all serpents and all 
humans. All serpent-makers are trying to destroy all individuality. 
All who want no part in the serpent game are making fumbling at- 
tempts to survive as individuals. 

In order to give real examples of the two possible directions for 
word-using humans, to show the two directions at the fork in the 
road, we contrasted the individual-subordinated-to-the-group 
pseudo-morality, advocated and practiced by the Jews, to the 
morality of individual sovereignty, as set forth in the teachings of 
Jesus and originally practiced by the German tribes. We were look- 
ing at diametrically opposing directions and the thought patterns 
from which they originated. We were looking at direction setting 
ideas. The view of Germans and Jews as separate races is a word- 
division advocated by serpent-makers; all of us are individual 
humans with serpent-makers interspersed among us. Now that the 
way of the serpent dominates the entire world, let us focus on the 
more comprehensive picture. Let us focus on all peoples as in- 
dividual humans. 


Humans are moral animals, and morality is the issue that sets 
direction. The serpent-making pseudo-morality of groupism opposes, 
not only the teachings of Jesus; it also opposes the direction indicated 
by the universal creative intelligence in the language of objective 
reality. Morality, as manifest in objective reality, is clear and 
uncontestable, but serpent-makers use words to overrule perception and 
prevent individuals from acknowledging to themselves what they see. 

In the world of objective reality we see herd animals — sheep, 
buffalo, lemmings, et cetera — and the herd practices can be seen as 
having some survival values that might recommend groupism. These 
group-survival-values are emphasized by the serpent makers, and 
presented as evidence in support of their pseudo-morality. If that was all 
we had to base our judgments on there might be some question. 
However reality perpetuates a clear history of many blind alleys of 
evolution; one of these displays the long-range effect of groupism. That 
one illuminates what might otherwise be questionable. Because it is 
history written in the pages of extant reality, it cannot be twisted by 
words. It stands there for all to see — and its meaning is clear. 

Certain bees and ants provide the ultimate history of groupism. That 
history shows that when a group moves toward becoming an organism, 
then sex — which, among other aspects, obviously functions as a 
prohibition against groupism — has to be perverted. The mentioned 
bees and ants have gone all the way — to total groupism. The result is 
total biological destruction of sex in worker-bees and worker-ants. 
Individual bees and ants are physically still discrete objects, but they are 
no longer "parts" — with the word in quotation marks. They are parts 
that have passed the point of no return. They have actually become 
biological parts. The semi-organism has become one organism — in 
full actuality. The parts have become fully dependent on the whole; 
they cannot survive when separated. The parts, although still discrete 
objects, function as asexual cells in the group-whole. The group-whole 
functions as a single asexual organism. The significance of sex has been 
lost beyond hope of recovery. 

The fact that this, unmistakably, is regression — when considering 
the direction of overall evolution — is clear evidence that the real 
language of the universal creative intelligence is saying that the pseudo- 
morality of groupism is immoral. 

For people who have an objective, analytical way of thinking, 
religion has to be derived from objective knowledge. For them, religion 
must be a concept of the cause, reality, and direction of the 


universe, and a conscious attempt to attain harmony with that reality 
and conform to that direction. The concept must be derived from 
waking observation. Their morality has to be formed by looking at the 
long range direction of evolution as its only indisputable criterion. 
When looking objectively at all living things, morality has to be read as 
choosing the long range direction being travelled by the advance 
echelon of evolution; the immoral has to be read as the regressive 
direction. Total groupism, the ultimate result of what we have been 
calling "the way of the serpent," opposes the real world's direction. 
Therefore, the way of the serpent must be called immoral in a religion 
based on scientific analysis of observed reality. 

Groupism, then, is condemned in two ways that have been recited. 
Jesus pointed out the immorality of groupism by the whole meaning of 
his life, death, and teachings. And groupism must be viewed as immoral 
from the long range perspective of manifest reality. 

But those who merely look at what immediately surrounds them, and 
see nothing but the serpent game, are persuaded to accept that game as 
"the way things are." They dismiss both admonitions — "choose the 
kingdom of heaven instead of the things of this world" and "choose 
enduring reality instead of the group-controlling game" — because no 
conspicuous society is now going in the recommended direction. They 
accept the game that treats individuals as human clones — and dismiss 
the admonition that when they function as clones, they are destroying 
something of great value. Some even try to word-glorify the obvious 
opposition of "the way things are" to the direction of the universal 
creative intelligence as manifest in enduring reality; they are nearing the 
point of no return when they have become word-conditioned to view 
their attempt to perfect the regressive way of the serpent as an attempt 
to "achieve victory over nature." 

The clear evidence that total groupism totally destroys sex suggests 
that the tie-in between sex and individualism is highly significant, and 
examination bears this out. Each supports the other. Without the free 
expression of individual will there is no deep perception of the 
differences between sexual temperaments, and no intimate yes-saying 
between one individual who creates by selective destruction and a 
radically different one who creates by selecting and cherishing. Without 
basic sexual perception, the finely tuned but more broadly focused 
perception that values radically different individuals is also destroyed; it 
has no impulse to perpetuate and sustain it. 


Sex has given the advance echelon of life its balance for 600 million 
years; but no longer is there a conspicuous human society where sex is 
still accepted as the balance obviously advocated by the universal 
creative intelligence. All attempts by game players to replace the reality 
of individual-based sex-balance with group-oriented ideas or with 
"laws," enforced by group power, have been crude and bungling. 

In India, the attempt was made to express the meaning of sex by 
artfully created gods representing life's balancing wills as abstracts. 
This, of course, perverted perception. Modern students of science, who 
pride themselves on ignoring "religious conditioning," have been led to 
focus objectively on the reproductive aspect of sex and to consider life 
by a formula that contains no perceptive will in its equation. They have 
accepted dogmas about sex that preclude an unbiased look at its 
meaning. Such dogmas are the raw stuff for making group-gods, and 
"science" can serve as a group-god, if it is used as such. As a serpent- 
making weapon for obscuring the significance of sex, currently 
practiced "sex education" is fully as destructive of perception as the 
older "sexual taboos." 

The pressure of "the way things are" tends to crowd out those who 
are able to sluff off dogmas and listen to what the voice within 
themselves says of sex. It tends to crowd out those who take a suffi- 
ciently perceptive look at enduring reality to discover that sex is not an 
abstract characteristic of life — yet, neither is it merely a reproductive 
process. It tends to crowd out those who recognize that sex is 
inseparably integrated into each individual's being as part of that one 
individual's innate perception and that two sexes provide life with a 
perceivable long-range balance. Yet all unconditioned humans I have 
ever known have understood sex and understood each other. From what 
I see, all big conflicts in our world originate from serpent makers. The 
conflict between all serpents and all individuals is the one that here 
concerns us. 

Although there can be no reasoned support for groupism, in- 
dividualism, the other fork in the road, is no longer something to which 
we can point. With the formation of the German Reich, the way of the 
serpent had at last been fully accepted by the last holdout which might 
effectively have opposed the history-old serpent way in the broad arena 
of world affairs. 

The Reich had been in existence less than fifty years when it was 
reduced to total chaos by World War I. In that chaos the beginnings of 
the ultimate battle to determine the direction of the human species could 
have been seen. But, because seventeen hundred years of brainwashing 
had been so effective, what was happening was not 


clearly evident throughout the world. It is not publicly recognized yet. It 
cannot be seen as long as humans continue to think of themselves as 
"parts" of various semi-organisms — and never look at the human 
species as a whole. It cannot be seen as long as humans look only at 
unreal group-gods, who are jealous of other unreal group-gods. 

— Or should I now change to a different language? 

In an effort to aid clarity, it might be well to change the language 
used when referring to the Bible. As we have moved forward in history, 
some of the language we needed in the beginning has become 
inappropriate. Definitely, we now need to include acknowledged 
atheists as serpent makers, and it approaches the absurd to talk of 
atheists believing in, or advocating, group-gods. So it might be well to 
look again at the primary example of people advocating a group-god — 
the Jews. 

Jesus made it clear that the group-god of the Jews was not the 
universal creative inteligence. Moses obviously recognized that many 
who had been in Egypt remembered all too well what "god" had caused 
the widespread deaths among the Egyptians. He had those killed who 
openly acknowledged the fictional character of the group-god he was 
presenting. Most Jews now acknowledge the fictional character of that 
god. According to Arthur Koestler, who, having Jewish heritage, has 
been able to explore the question extensively; the majority of present 
day Jews are atheists or agnostics. However, they remain a cohesive 
group, giving top priority to what is "good" for the Nomadic Jewish 
Nation with as complete a disregard for "outsiders" as if they were 
blindly following the lead of a jealous group-god. In this respect, they 
have led a trend in present day serpent making. Judaeo-Communism is 
openly atheistic. Most state-serpents give lip service to separation 
between state and religion, even though the Greeks long ago discovered 
that it cannot be done effectively. The Jews never tried it. From the 
beginning the Jews have always viewed religion as a political tool; from 
the beginning their god was a front for gaining the tolerance of deeply 
religious people. And down through the centuries their elaborate 
"religious" ceremonies have been mere rituals for reaffirming group 
unity. Now, predominately atheists or agnostics, they are clearly 
committed, not to a god but, to a voluntary grouping that aids Jews to 
the disregard of everyone outside their group. Looking at the Jews 
clarifies the total serpent picture. 

Commitment to a nation-state, founded on a groupism pseudo- 
morality, functions in exactly the same way as commitment to a group- 
god. The state is viewed by present day people in exactly the 


same way that more primitive people viewed a group-god. "Our state" 
and "we, who are god's chosen people" are the same sort of words 
saying "we are parts of a cohesive group and will act as a group." 

In a world of many atheists, who think themselves too sophisticated 
for group-god beliefs, clarity requires us to update the wording of the 
laws Moses got the Jews to accept — in exactly the same way the 
communists got communism accepted in Russia — by killing off the 
opposition. To bring the laws of Moses into current thought patterns, 
they would need only be changed to read: "You shall love your state 
with all your soul, mind, and strength — for your own is a jealous state 
that will surely kill unbelievers." 

State-serpent makers use a reshuffled version of the old Catholic 
sophistry to promote confusion and obscure what is happening. When 
the Pope had full control of the "Holy Roman Empire" all significant 
questions were called "religious" and therefore under the Pope's 
jurisdiction. To serpent makers significant questions are those where 
words effectively control human will. Now that civil serpents dominate, 
"religious freedom" is sometimes allowed — provided all significant 
actions willed by individuals are tied by words to state "authority" — 
and religions confine themselves to passive "faiths." Yet the simplest 
logic cries out that if individual integrity is advocated, separation 
between religion and individual will can be nothing but sophistry. It is 
now the states that promote the significant serpent-making pseudo- 
morality that the individual is merely a "part" and the unit having 
priority in willed action is the group. It is therefore the states that now 
promote the primitive group-god pseudo-morality and actively defy the 
manifest morality of the universal creative intelligence. 

The present world condition may determine whether or not the 
human species gives up its place in the advance echelon of evolution. 
The question now becomes: Can there any longer be anything but state 
against state, serpent against serpent? Has the individual already lost 
every chance of survival as an individual? 


The beginning focal point of the ultimate world conflict was in the 
chaos of Germany following the first World War. The factors were 
clearly apparent, but were not publicly identified. The publicly 
identified results of the First World War are these: 

(1) In North America "German" became a hated word; it came to 
refer only to the German-speaking-people of the Reich, who had been 
our wartime enemy. Popular history in America was distorted 


to obscure the fact that most Americans are of German heritage; 
popular history perpetuated the wartime viewpoint of the Germans 
as an "enemy" people. 

(2) In Russia the war provided the chaos for which the Com- 
munists had spent fifty years preparing. They took full advantage 
of it, shot the existing rulers, tore down the altars of other group- 
gods, and gave the old commandment an up to date expression: 
"You shall love Communism with all your soul, mind, and 
strength, for Communism is the one and only true way, and the 
name of Communism is jealous." 

(3) The conditions imposed on the Reich, by the United States 
and others who defeated the "Germans," resulted in a chaos from 
which would come the still bigger World War II — still another 
conflict between states jealous of other states. 

In America the Second World War is remembered for the single 
fact that Hitler ordered the killing of about six million Jews, who 
were not in uniform and were not carrying the arms and flag of an 
enemy state. This fact needs to be put in perspective if the total 
reality — of what was and is happening to the whole human species 
— is to be seen. War, as a gentlemen's sporting event, existed only 
in some areas of the world, and that kind of war existed only for a 
short time in world history. Before, during, and after the mass kill- 
ings that were contrary to the "gentlemen's" war, there were 
similar and even more atrocious things done by others, including 
the Jews, themselves, as recited in their Bible. But that does not 
make the knowledge that six million people were gassed and their 
corpses burned less awe inspiring. Hitler's avowed objective of 
keeping impure blood from polluting pure blood was ridiculous, 
but to dismiss Hitler and the whole German people as more insane 
than the rest of the human species is to refuse to look at realities. 
The whole human species is in this thing together. What happened 
in Germany needs to be seen from a perspective embracing all 

What happened in Germany needs to be seen, not as a conflict of 
Germans and Jews, but as a conflict of one group-semi-organism 
with another group-semi-organism. Germans versus Jews was a 
word-created division of humans — just as Marx's "bourgeoisie" 
and "proletariat" was a word-created division of humans. But this 
condition cannot be brushed aside with the statement "let's just all 
love each other." That admonition ignores a significance that reality 
will not ignore. Reality presents every individual human with a 
command that cannot be escaped: "Choose! Do you commit to in- 
dividual sovereignty? Or do you commit to group sovereignty over 


the individual?" 

How many similar examples must be looked at before that choice 
can be seen as the only one there is? 

If we use serpent-language and speak of a nation as having an 
enemy, if we use serpent-language and speak of the German Reich 
as if it were a real thing, if we speak of it as a "nation," about fifty 
years old, then, unquestionably, the Nomadic Jewish Nation, 
about three thousand years old, was Germany's major enemy. It 
was an enemy on three counts: 

(1) The flip side of the coin, which the Catholic Church had tried 
to pass off as Christianity, was fashioned from the Jewish Bible. 

(2) The ideology and objectives of the Communists, standing 
armed at the German borders, were Jewish: Communism was 
evolved from Jewish traditions and advocated the Jewish pseudo- 

(3) The flesh and blood people, who were committed to the 
Nomadic Jewish Nation while living in Germany, were actively and 
effectively gaining word-control over the native Germans. They 
were using the underhanded methods celebrated in the Passover 
Feast, as further developed by more than two thousand years of liv- 
ing in a parasitic relationship with various host nations. Seventy- 
eight percent of the lawyers in Austria were Jews. The Jewish 
House of Ullstein was the biggest publisher of books and 
periodicals in Germany; this Jewish family dominated the media. 

Using serpent-language, no people ever had a more clearly defin- 
ed enemy than the German people had in the Jewish people. 

But this is not the usual sort of history about peoples against 
peoples, nations against nations, serpents against serpents. It is not 
focusing on fictitious entities. This is a history of word-controlled 
humans — and the realities are human individuals. 

We first looked at the Jews, who built their serpent in secret. 
Now we look at the Germans. They operated in the open and can be 
clearly seen. Also the events are recent enough for all details to be 

Never on earth has there been a more spectacular and impressive 
assembly of highly disciplined, and tightly regimented, human in- 
dividuals than those who responded to the word control of Adolf 
Hitler. The speaker stood and addressed the assembly. The 
speaker's words, and the heils that came from the armed men, stir- 
red memories of sovereigns beating swords against their shields in 
the Saxon forests. In the Saxon forests the sound had been both ap- 
plause and commitment to a leader who dared a noble fight and 
asked for brave men to join him. The cherished memory was 


magnified to unspeakable grandeur by the staged spectacle; the 
response of brave men was the response to a vague subconscious 

In that assembly, an innate knowledge, once consciously ar- 
ticulated, but now confused by a thousand years of word-control, 
stirred as a vague impulsive response to a leader asking men to 
remember something that had long been buried in the deepest 
depths of their beings. The deflection of a valid impulse is the point 
that needs attention. 

The Jews had originally been word controlled under the laws of 
leaders who set themselves up as gods knowing a good and evil dif- 
ferent from that manifest by the universal creative intelligence. The 
Jews had been word controlled for three thousand years; the Ger- 
mans for much less time — they still had an impulse to revolt 
against the serpent. The way of the serpent is immoral. The impulse 
was valid. Bringing the language of the two peoples together, the 
serpent had come into the Saxon forest, and the Germans had not 
originally recognized the Jewish serpent as the dragon, which Ger- 
man tradition warned against. Now — half consciously — they did. 

But Hitler was no Siegfried fighting a dragon; he was a dragon 
maker as surely as Moses was a serpent maker. 

Dragon, serpent, state, nation, reich, fatherland, body politic — 
all are words for something that as yet has no reality among 
humans. However these fictitious things can become realities. The 
possibility is a real and present danger for the entire human species. 
This same evolutionary regression has been "accomplished" by 
ants and certain species of bees. It is the danger ancient German 
mythology warned against. 

If Hitler had shown himself to be the Siegfried that he apparently 
visualized himself to be, then the "Heil Hitler" of brave men in 
uniformed columns would have been taken up by brave men 
throughout the world. Since Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declara- 
tion of Independence, and the mythological American cowboy 
became a twenty-one inch shadow, no clear eyed leader has stood 
up among sovereign individuals and voiced the objective for which 
brave men — who remain discrete individuals — still stand ready to 

What would Hitler have said if he had been such a clear eyed 
leader? What would he have said if he had not been a demagog, try- 
ing to promote the same idea of a chosen people that three thou- 
sand years before had been promoted by those he now called 

He would have proclaimed the eternal truth, which was silenced 


by mass murder, individual torture, and priestly inquisitions in the 
Saxon forests. He would have proclaimed the eternal truth voiced by 
Jesus, Roger Williams, and Thomas Jefferson. The time was ripe. The 
stage was set. And he was speaking to the people who had held out 
longest for individual freedom. A Hitler with the soul of a Siegfried 
might have said: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created 
sovereign individuals, that every individual has all the rights and 
powers that the word-perverters of reality have said belong to a group- 
god or to a 'sovereign state.' We, who support these truths, now face a 
conflict with those who seek to pervert them. 

"Two thousand years ago the armies of Julius Caesar tried to press 
the sovereignty of a man-created "authority" on the German people — a 
people fully aware that we inherited our own creative intelligence, as 
discrete human beings, from the aboriginal creative intelligence of the 
universe. We refused to recognize any man-created "authority." We 
effectively resisted the armies of Caesar. As free sovereign individuals, 
voluntarily committing ourselves temporarily to the strategic planning 
of the most able leaders in our midst, we fought and retained our 
individual freedom — the freedom which the dragon sought to take 
from us. We have always retained that freedom, always, since 
unrecorded times when memories dissolve into mythology. 

"We defeated the armies of Caesar. But then came the priests. They 
were kindly old men, who told us of Jesus. They said that Jesus had 
tried to tell others what we have always accepted as axiomatic. They 
quoted Jesus as saying, 'You can disobey the gods people create and that 
may cause trouble, however gods made by men are something you can 
safely transgress against; but if you disobey the holy spirit within you, 
you are in danger of eternal damnation.' The priests told us that Jesus 
was crucified by his own people, the Jews, for telling them this obvious 
truth, and that Jesus had died as a brave man should. We recognized that 
Jesus was more than a hero; we recognized that he was a god — he was 
expressing with his total being what we considered to be the one 
significant truth on which human salvation depends. We allowed the 
priests to tell the story of Jesus to our children. 

"But the priests were underhanded schemers. When we were not 
there, they told our children about the miraculous ways of the outside 
world. Like pimps, making use of beautiful young women, they set up 
Catholic schools, and charmed the children into believing that 
'authoritative' words should overrule native perception — 


perception both of the inner voice and perception of external reality. 
Too late we discovered that it was not Jesus, but the very group-god of 
the Jews who had crucified Jesus, for whom our children were being 
taught reverence. 

"Those children, conditioned by false words, grew up to become 
brainwashed leaders of brainwashed followers. On instructions from the 
Pope, they obeyed exactly the same orders given to the sons of Levi by 
Moses, when he said: 'Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every 
man his sword by his side, and slay every man his brother, and every 
man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' They killed 
individuals who would not accept 'authority' expressed in words. As 
soon as the priests had the protection of brainwashed men, they devised 
unbelievable tortures for all who obeyed the spirit within themselves. 

"We have now had a thousand years of confusion, caused by those 
priests. We still have the slyly injected words of this Jewish group-god 
permeating our thoughts. The confusion has become a part of our 
literature. It will be generations before we can return to natural relations 
between individuals, and to natural relations between each individual 
and the creative intelligence of the universe. That is our own problem; 
that is the problem of Germans, who have been duped. We know what 
has to be done. It is up to us to remove the obstruction from our own 

"However there are two further problems. 

"The problem of next closest intimacy exists because we have 
allowed the Jews, themselves, to live among us, while they were still 
committed to a direction opposing ours. Now we all speak the same 
language, we have many of the same customs, and we have inter- 
married to such an extent that biological heritage cannot be 
distinguished by appearance in a high proportion of individuals. The 
problem exists because the great majority of those who have any faint 
trace of Jewish heritage commit themselves to Jewish traditions, and to 
the direction implicit in those traditions. 

"While living among us, the Jews have acted cohesively, in ac- 
cordance with the traditions and direction they perpetuate among 
themselves. Most of them have shown by their acts that their first 
allegiance is to the Nomadic Jewish Nation, that they are presenting a 
false front as citizens of the German Reich. This is not a passive 

"The majority of lawyers in Austria are Jews. The Jews substantially 
control the media in Germany. Grain by grain they insert their own 
ideas in small doses, which they can "legally" defend. The total 
underhanded activity gradually weights the ideology of 


books in libraries and schools toward Jewish pseudo-morality. Jewish 
pseudo-morality diametrically opposes the morality of the Germans. 

"Jewish traditions promote the pseudo-morality that the welfare of 
the Jews as a group is the only valid objective. They teach that 
individuals within the group have value only to the extent that they 
contribute to the group's welfare. They set forth no concept of sex but 
for the purpose of reproduction, for formation of ties that promote 
Jewish traditions, and for sensual "lust." They ignore the very reality of 
the sexual love that recognizes — and glories in — the wonder of the 
sexual balance devised by the universal creative intelligence. 

"We, Germans, see individual humans — with sex as a balance 
between two essential creative functions — as the advance echelon of 
evolution and the direction pointed by the universal creative in- 
telligence. We, therefore, recognize that the traditions, the pseudo- 
morality, and the direction of the Jews are totally unreconcilable with 
the traditions, morality, and direction of the Germans. 

"The universal creative intelligence obviously tolerates regression, all 
the way back to asexuality, in ants and bees. But those who regress 
become a separate species. As of now there is no separate species 
among humans, resulting from group pseudo-morality; but the direction 
is clear. Jews and Germans cannot exist together while pursuing 
opposite directions. 

"The Jews among us, who want to abandon the Jewish serpent and 
make an unequivocal commitment to individualism, are welcome to 
remain. Those who want to continue in the Jewish direction must leave. 
If they stay without a formal commitment — without a formal 
commitment ratified by subsequent behavior — they will be considered 
as spies and saboteurs, holding citizenship in an enemy nation, while 
living under a false front as citizens of the Reich. They will be executed. 

"We have a third problem, which makes it too precarious for us to 
tolerate known saboteurs in our midst. Now we must fight Judaeo- 
Communism for our very survival. An enemy — born of Jewish 
tradition — now stands fully armed at our Russian border. The Jewish 
pseudo-morality of making the individual nothing, and the 'good' of the 
group the only objective, is clearly manifest in Communism. In the 
Soviet Union, this Judaeo-Communism has replaced Judaeo- 
Catholicism, as the opiate of the masses; it is based on the same practice 
of placing words above reality. Communism is the Jewish serpent 
turned into the Judaeo-Communist dragon. The ways of the serpent 
have often been too underhanded 


for immediate recognition — but the dragon we recognize and know 
how to fight. 

"We fight a war on three fronts. We fight on three fronts against 
those who call individual sovereignty immoral. On two of these three 
fronts we must fight alone. On the third front — where the enemy is 
clearly visible — we now face the Jewish serpent become the 
Communist dragon. Judaeo-Communism has a clear objective of total 
world control. We appeal to all who have sufficiently overcome the 
pseudo-morality that has mutilated our German heritage, and has 
confused the teachings of Jesus for two thousand years, to join us. The 
future direction of the human species hangs on the outcome of the war 
for which battle lines are now forming on Germany's eastern front." 

If Hitler had used his oratorical skill to put such opposition to group 
semi-organisms — Jewish and otherwise — into the kind of words that 
the occasion called for, he might have found individuals in great 
numbers everywhere ready to fight against groups trying to destroy 
them. But the sincerity that gives power to oratory would have required 
a different man. Hitler was not a Siegfried. 

However, Hitler was sincere. It was the sincere voice of a confident 
leader, ready to fight and die for what he believed, that stirred 
memories of that long ago Saxon forest. 

The memories of that almost forgotten Saxon forest still cry out for 
the attention of waking consciousness. Those memories cry out that we 
need to recognize, with our full consciousness, what was wrong with 
the situation signified by the life and death of Hitler. That conscious 
recognition is of vital importance to the future of the whole human 

In the forest, where individual sovereignty held sway, there had been 
two equal sexes. The male's will, to create by selective destruction, had 
been evenly balanced by the female's will, to create by selecting what 
she willed to preserve and cherish. In the Saxon forest each man, who 
saw himself as a sovereign individual, also saw himself balanced by a 
woman equally sovereign. In all significant matters he consulted her as 
an equal. Two thousand years ago, impressed observers from other 
areas did not say "as an equal" but "as a goddess." The observation was 
a valid one. Reverence for the sexual balance, designed by the universal 
creative intelligence, was basic to the concept of individual sovereignty. 
This reverence for woman — as that portion of the voice of the 
universal creative intelligence which was only a faint whisper in the 
depths of man's being — this reverence was a consciously accepted 
control over masculine aggressiveness. 


Only one side of the richly remembered past in the forest had been so 
magnified as to present the highly disciplined men of the German Reich 
in awe inspiring grandeur. 

When Hitler rose as their leader to address the most spectacular 
group of fighting men ever assembled on earth, Eva Braun — in an 
apartment, deliberately obscured from public view by the Fuhrer — was 
attempting suicide; she was attempting suicide because she was alone 
and ashamed of her very existence — an existence that had been 
deprived of all purpose in the grand spectacle around her. 

When Hitler rose to point out the Jews as the world's greatest enemy, 
his battle cry was not: We must regain and preserve the individual 
sovereignty lost to us when clever priests, passing off Jewish group- 
making commandments as the teachings of Jesus, infiltrated the Saxon 
forests. Hitler was a brainwashed product of the very thing he professed 
to be fighting. He was raised a Catholic; he was enormously impressed 
by the serpent ceremonies of the Catholic Church; he seriously 
considered becoming a Catholic priest; the swastika was adopted from 
an engraving on the gate of a Catholic monastery that, as a child, he 
passed every day. He was committed to the flip side of the Catholic coin 
— the group serpent advocated by the Jews. 

Although his biological roots went back to the forests where the 
teachings of Jesus were accepted as axiomatic, Hitler was the opposite 
of Jesus. If he had been a Jew, he could have been cheered by the Jews 
as the sort of messiah for which — after crucifying Jesus — they still 
waited. He had been brainwashed into accepting Jewish traditions. Like 
Moses, he was holding up a serpent; he was saying that all who are 
bitten by other serpents, and fail to look on this one, shall surely die. 
Like Moses he cried out: We are a people chosen to dominate the rest of 
the world because of the ancestral blood in our veins. 

There is no record of a voice by the River Rhine saying: Repent those 
words and be baptized into the human species. The admonition of Jesus 
to first remove the obstruction from one's own eye, before trying to treat 
a brother, was rejected by Hitler, as it was by the Jews. It conflicts with 
the craft of serpent makers. 

The second World War was groups fighting groups. Jesus, or a ghost 
from the ancient Saxon forests, or anyone else advocating individual 
freedom, would have been a voice crying in the wilderness of rattling 
drums and marching feet. Such an advocate of individualism might have 
been crucified by a patriotic mob. Certainly such a one would have been 
sneered at, and spit upon — by allies and enemies alike — because he 
was "unpatriotic." That is the 


significant thing that had happened to the whole human species. 
No longer did any people, great enough to carry weight in the world 
arena, uphold the morality of individualism. The way of the ser- 
pent had finally come to dominate the entire world. 

The Germans fenced the Jews in concentration camps and the 
Americans fenced the Japanese in concentration camps. When the 
war was being lost, the Germans killed the captive Jews. When the 
"patriotic" mob hysteria quieted after the war, the Americans 
released the Japanese. 

In a bunker, Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide together. 
The Romeo-Juliet situation is overshadowed by a fitting epitaph 
that comes to mind, as Hitler might have spoken it. With truth and 
sincerity, he could have said: I have been a poor caricature of a 
man, and I have been a worse lover, but, to the very end, I have 
been a patriot. 

Had he made such a statement, he would doubtless have been 
proud of the self-appraisal. And no one could disagree with it. It 
would be difficult to find a more selfless, single-minded patriot 
than Adolf Hitler. Of such is the kingdom of serpents. 


Whether a serpent is made up of Germans or Jews, whether it is 
called "civil" or "religious," whether it is manipulated by a con- 
spicuous dictator or an entrenched bureaucracy is not the problem. 
The whole human species is now in one common snake pit. The 
way of the serpent can lead only to extinction of the human species, 
or — what to me appears far worse — human regression. The pro- 
blem is: How can individual integrity be restored? 

We have talked of the spread of the history-old way of the ser- 
pent everywhere except in the Far East. There it has been slightly 

The Japanese — like the German tribes before Catholic 
"Christianity" — originally saw the universal creative intelligence, 
expressed in nature, as being "the word of god;" they found 
"tongues in trees, books in running brooks, sermons in stone, and 
good in everything." Unlike the concepts of the early German 
tribes, that were blotted from history by priests, patient monks 
twisting "mythology," and the tortures of the inquisitions — Shinto, 
the religion of the Japanese, has survived. In it can be seen the 
essence of all religions, such as true Christianity, that are based 
upon and refer to observations of nature. Those who study nature 
can only conclude that all living things are direct descendants of the 
aboriginal creative intelligence; and that thoughtful humans are 


distinguished from other living things only because more fully con- 
scious, and because they have a language — which they misuse. 

Shinto was subtly perverted with words because the Japanese 
Emperor wanted "authority." To give him "authority" the perception 
recited in Shinto was slightly deflected from its original concept — the 
concept that every living thing is a discrete descendant of god. It was 
modified to state the partial concept that "the Emperor is a descendant 
of god." By failing to mention all others, it implied that the divine 
heritage belonged exclusively to the emperor. The corollary to the 
implication was that others should obey his words. 

Just where the Japanese will fit into World War III, now shaping up, 
is not easy to guess at this time. The exact direction of the Chinese is 
even harder to predict. 

The Chinese have been close enough to the soil to let family evolve 
into serpent, or dragon, only within the area occupied by the Chinese 
people. Genghis Khan almost overran all Europe but, on the whole, the 
Chinese have not, in the past, aimed at universality. Now they have 
adopted Communism as their word-control system, and adopted the 
Marxist objective that communism must become the only international 
power. However Judaeo-Communism may undergo some modification 
in China. This is because the Chinese were not previously word 
controlled by Catholic Judaeo-"Christianity," as were the Russians. 

Islam dominates the mideast and all of Africa. Mexico and South 
America continue Catholic. 

The serpents or dragons of the world are now moving toward an all- 
out, world-wide contest. Total atomic war that destroys most of the 
people in the world appears almost inevitable. Whether it comes or not, 
the same question faces the human species — those now living or any 
few who survive. The question is this: Will there continue to be nothing 
but group-semi-organisms, which can only result in ultimate human 
regression, a regression that removes humans from the advance echelon 
of evolution? Or will we humans recover from our brainwashing and 
choose the way that has been pointed by the universal creative 
intelligence for three billion years — individual sovereignty? 

Where do we look for an answer? The way of the serpent had 
enslaved most of the human species even before the dawn of history. 
Now it enslaves all. 

Where do we look for a power that is both capable of controlling 
serpents and has the will to do so? Even if such an organization as the 
United Nations ever developed the capability, such an organiza- 


tion, taking its power from serpents, would not have the motive 
for, gradually but relentlessly, reducing the serpents' word-control 
of individuals. 

Does this mean that no answer but one of the two that are unac- 
ceptable is possible? It does unless individuals assert their innate 
sovereignty; the will to control serpents must come from in- 

Can such a diametrical reversal of present conditions be ac- 
complished? The United States and other areas where people still 
have a vague memory of individual sovereignty appears the best 
possibility for consciously moving away from serpent practices. 

Can it be joint action between members of such organization as 
NATO? No. 

If there is to be any accomplishment, it must begin with the in- 
dividual "parts" of one serpent. In the United States it must begin 
with removal of the big obstructions from our own eyes so that we 
can see clearly to remove the small obstructions from the eyes of 
others. Bumbling attempts to improve the visions of others results 
in mass warfare. Certainly, we, the people of the United States, 
have need for self-treatment. The virtue of United States power lies 
in the fact that such self-treatment could be made conspicuous 
enough to furnish the whole world with an example of what can be 

Stealth — underhanded methods — is the way of the United 
States semi-organism that is most objectionable, both to conscien- 
tious individuals that it calls its "parts," and to others looking 
from distant shores at the United States as a serpent-entity. The 
ways celebrated in the Passover Feast have permeated United States 
politics, just as the Judaeo-"Christianity," and all it implies, has 
permeated United States language, literature, and thought. The 
undercover "authority" that needs to be removed before we can 
have clear vision is exercised in the United States through two 

(1) Laws are made in such profusion that clear law does not exist. 
"Authority" is arbitrarily exercised by serpent-making persons in 
"positions of authority." The "authority" of the positions exists 
"by the grace of the positions" as in earlier times "authority" in a 
monarch existed "by the grace of a group-god." The fact that there 
are many such positions, whose incumbents compete with each 
other, simply turns law into a garbage heap from which 


"government aid" and "government penalty" come about in 
underhanded maneuvers — underhanded maneuvers by, and in 
conspiracy with, individuals in "authoritative" positions. This condition 
makes underhanded dealings the most expedient, if not the only, 
method of accomplishing anything — good or bad. The fact that the 
practice is fully accepted makes those who respect and adhere to the 
facade of written law totally ineffectual. They are seen as naive fools, 
and looked upon with snickering contempt by those who "know how to 
get things done." 

(2) Money, as "authority," is used to obtain control of "positions of 
authority" and to make "laws" favorable to undercover operations. The 
practice of collecting United States taxes and using them in 
unconstitutional ways, by conspiracy with persons and bureaucracies 
having "authority," is on such a scale that it leaves the perception of 
"citizens" completely numbed. Outside observers, distant enough not to 
be numbed, are fully aware that the United States is constantly using 
money taken from United States tax payers to finance surreptitious 
political activities in foreign countries. The practice has made the 
United States, which was once looked upon as the champion of 
individuals, the most suspiciously surreptitious serpent now in 
"existence." It could become the most hated. 

Open, aboveboard, clearly defined action, with a clearly stated 
constitutional purpose, is the conspicuous treatment needed. 


Despite the United States' faults recited above, individuals living 
under the struggle for "authority" in the United States system probably 
still have more freedom than individuals anywhere else in the world. 
The Bill of Rights for individuals is being slowly destroyed because it is 
being misused by groups trying to get special group privileges. But the 
Bill of Rights remains the one facet of law to which individuals can 
appeal for protection against the surreptitious acts of "authorities" now 
controlling the United States. Also the scarred and mutilated first 
amendment still stands and still says: "Congress shall make no law ... 
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people 
peacefully to assemble and petition the government for a redress of 
grievances." The opportunity still exists for the people of the United 
States to turn the tide of world history in favor of individual 

Voting will NOT accomplish this. The entrenched politicians, and 
others just like them, which are all the existing system puts into office, 
will never do what is necessary if allowed to continue in the 


same pattern. Still, as of this moment — without armed revolution 

— those in "positions of authority" could be required to obey a 
clear and positive mandate from the people. 

The possibility of defeating the way of the serpent by peaceful means 
and restoring individual sovereignty to the people of the United States 

— and maybe, thereby, to all the peoples of the world 

— depends on the answer to two questions: 

(1) Are there enough Christians among the Judaeo- 
"Christians," and enough others committed to individual 
sovereignty, to present the necessary mandate to those in 
"positions of authority?" 

(2) If those mentioned above do exist can they be aroused to pre 
sent such a mandate before World War III closes the gate on this 
moment of opportunity? 


Words — that are accepted as law — have been used to control and 
enslave all individuals. Words — that are accepted as law — can also 
be used to break that control and enslavement. 

It is important not to make it easy for serpent advocates to divide 
individuals and defeat our actions — because we are individuals. 
Therefore I want to end this work by quoting from Melvin Gorham's 
current book, The Six Disciplines of Man's Being and Man's Relation to 

The following five steps are legally available to all who are 
designated "citizens of the United States." If action — other than 
bloody revolution — is going to depose the ruling bureaucratic 
monster of the United States, these steps must be taken with un- 
wavering deliberation that refuses to be deflected into a babble of 
words that are not law. 


The first step is for people of good will to use some of the energy 
and money that in the past has gone into the circus contests between 
tweedle-dee-tweedle-dum political candidates to concentrate public 
attention on the following indisputable facts: 

1. The laws made and enforced by the elected, appointed, and 
hired employees of the United States have 


become so numerous and complex that countless thousands of 
individuals in the government can make arbitrary decisions that 
may or may not be legal but are too much trouble to contest. 

2. The economy and the value of money are being destroyed 
by this confusion. 

3. The borderline between criminal and legal actions is 
breaking down until expedient action in the cloud of confusion is 
becoming the general practice. As a result there is a fading away 
of all semblance of government by law. The cry for law and order 
is a cry of those drowning in so many laws that there can be no 
law and order. 

4. The power taken from the states, counties, and cities by the 
Federal Government in a quasi-legal manner has further 
increased the confusion. In contested relationships between 
bodies politic, flesh and blood individuals receive no attention. 

5. The U.S. Government that was set up to guard against 
tyranny has itself created a bureaucratic tyranny of individual- 
fettering confusion. 

6. The obvious remedy is a new, updated clarity of concept as 
to the functions of the U.S. Government, followed by a severe 
limitation on bureaucratic rules that have the status of Federal 


The second step is to focus intelligent discussion, with an 
intensity that refuses to be deflected, on the further indisputable 
fact that, short of revolution, there is one way and one way only 
to correct the existent state of confusion. Congress must act. The 
first effective act to implement the obvious remedy is entirely 
and exclusively within the powers of Congress. The following 
two steps in one action by Congress taken in the order given will 
be effective. Anything less than this complete action will 
increase the problem of government-by-confusion. 


First step to be taken by Congress 

Remove every Federal agency other than those that would be 
part of a clarified Federal Government, as set forth in Congress's 
second step below, from a position where their regulations have 
the status of Federal Law. Change them into Government 
corporations that can sue and be sued — but whose regulations 
are not laws that bog down legislation and law enforcement. (An 
example of this procedure exists in the evolution of the Federal 
National Mortgage Association - FNMA. When this and similar 
acts of legislation are buried within the continually expanding 
bureaucracy, they give no aid, whatsoever, to the present 
objective. The example is cited only to show that the procedure is 
workable. Congress already knows how to use it.) This first step 
is necessarily first because the numerous Federal agencies, the 
obscure and ambiguously facaded Federal agencies, by their very 
status as parts of the Federal Government, create a confusion that 
makes any approach to the second step hopelessly complicated 
and therefore impossible. This first step can be totally 
accomplished with one vote on one bill. Anything else can only 
be construed as an attempt to create confusion. 

Second step to be taken by Congress 

Prepare and submit for ratification an updated and clarified 
constitution that limits the Federal Government's parts, whose 
regulations are law, to those of (a) national defense, (b) 
regulatory control of subordinate bodies politic, and (c) 
protection of individuals from the United States, itself, and from 
subordinate bodies politic in fields clearly specified and 
effectively implemented by that same constitution. 



Only Congress as a unified body can accomplish this action. 
Yet no one can be naive enough not to know that Congress will 
resist taking the above action. This is true because this action 
would remove much of the power of individual politicians and 
competing political parties to do surreptitious favors for 
constituents in exchange for support. Therefore, after the public 
is aware of exactly what is needed, the pressure of the people 
demanding this action as top priority must be exerted on 
Congress. Every legal means possible should be used for this 
purpose by every person who is conscious or can be made 
conscious of the pressing necessity. 

This pressure on Congress is necessary, not because 
congressmen are some special breed of unscrupulous scoundrels 
but, because long ago the practice of tying trivial laws to the 
constitution by thin legal ramifications caused the system to 
degenerate into one of "pork barrel politics". Every 
Congressional effort to correct the system became another 
tenuously tied law that further complicated the mess. 
Congressmen know that they cannot really "clean house" unless 
their actions have full support from the people. The people have 
never given Congress a mandate to "clean up the mess". If there 
is to be real change that mandate must be given. 


After the action to frame a new constitution gets under way 
the people will need to pressure Congress into incorporating a 
new factor into the new constitution that politicians will be 
reluctant to include. Again the mandate must be given. This new 
factor also will put a drastic limitation on powers now zealously 
guarded by elected legislators. This requirement is that one body 
politic must have only one body of law — always completely 
contained in one document. 


Despite the fact that this condition has not existed since the 
early days of the republic, and the argument will, of course, be 
made that things are now too complicated for such practice, such 
an argument cannot be accepted. Law to be workable must be 
brief enough to be fully reproduced, widely distributed, held in 
his hands, read, understood, and used to defend himself or protect 
his interests by any individual over whom it claims jurisdiction. 
There can be no government by law, and consequently no law- 
abiding citizens, unless the law is clearly stated. To satisfy the 
condition of clarity there must be a completely self-contained 
document which, resisting all bureaucratic expediency, can be 
held in his hand by a natural person and recognized indusputably 
as THE LAW. 

This principle incorporated into the Federal Constitution 
will not only limit the Federal Government, it will serve two 
other essential purposes. First, it will limit all state and 
subordinate governments. Second, it will set a precedent among 
the governments of the world on which "recognition" of one 
government by another can be based. Therefore the new Federal 
Constitution should contain words that carry the following intent: 

"The body politic known as the United States of America 
invites acceptance by the powers of the 

world on the basis of this comprehensive statement of its laws, 
and hereby declares that it will consider recognition of another 
body politic only if such body politic publishes a single 
document which it asserts to be the sole and total expression 
of its intents and purposes, and of its mechanics for bringing 
conforming pressures on all it proposes to govern. This must 
include all natural individuals and all fictitious entities 
subordinate to itself, all things or persons, real or fictitious, 
which it claims as its component parts. This one document 
must be offered to the world at large and to the governed as 
having supremacy over all others." 



After the first four steps have been taken several options 
would open, all leading away from the primitive thought pattern 
which has been rigidly formalized into the dogma that every 
individual on earth must identify with a body politic. 

The first tangible evidence of changing thought patterns would 
probably result from the following event. The United States 
Government's severe limitation of its own powers would make it 
a sought-after protector by all small nations of the world. 
Presumably the protection would be extended to those who 
published acceptable constitutions. When the blanket of 
protection began to spread, the need for an individual to identify 
with a protected nation would be no greater than the present need 
for one designated a U.S. Citizen to identify with a state, county, 
or city government. 

Increasing freedom of immigration between areas under 
jurisdiction of recognized governments would need to follow so 
that individuals could demonstrate preference by moving to a 
new area instead of fighting to 

impose their own preference upon people in some other area. 

There can never be a world of free people choosing their own 
laws as long as any minority, even a minority of one, has no 
choice except a choice between the tyrannies of already 
established majorities. Therefore areas where no government had 
jurisdiction and none was allowed to take jurisdiction would 
need to be allowed in order to provide a full range of choices. 
Extensive areas of public land over which the U.S. and the 
separate states now claim jurisdiction would need to be set aside 
for this purpose, as well as other areas throughout the world. 

With the above highly probable results, new concepts and a 
language in which they could be expressed would have the 
opportunity to evolve. These would be concepts and language 
for moving completely away from the 


primitive thought pattern of tribal or peer group identification 
(formalized as being parts of a "body politic") — and moving 
toward concepts and language for mature sovereign individuals 
making agreements with each other for self-government. 

Thereafter the future is difficult to see. It is not difficult to see 
because the crystal ball becomes cloudy; it is difficult to see 
because the glory of the possibilities is too dazzling to 
contemplate. From the present perspective the direction which 
biological evolution would begin to move seems almost 
unbelievable. But it is unbelievable only because of a widespread 
myth that, throughout all history, has been part of everyone's 
earliest childhood programming. This myth claims that man is, in 
the inherent nature that he shares with other animals, essentially 
evil — and man, being evil, must be governed. This myth exists 
and is perpetuated because it is the brainwashing basis on which 
to write its corollary: Everyone who is not an "evil outlaw" must 
identify with a body politic. 

No perceptive person, especially among those who have had 
any contact with wild or domestic animals other than man, can of 
his own observation believe this myth that walls in the 
superhighway. But no one can point to evidence that it is not true. 
They cannot point to evidence that it is not true because, in a 
world where all must identify with a body politic or perish, and 
their history be distorted or wiped out, there simply can not be 
any empirical evidence to disprove the myth. 

In a world thai accepts only what is borne out by empirical 
evidence, it is useless to argue against the evidence when one 
knows that the evidence has been rigged. But open the field of 
evidence and look at what kind of morality can be observed in 
animals other than man. Do they not all seem to live under the 
concept that conscious, prideful, individual sovereignty is the 
highest morality? Now assume a culture of Homo sapiens where 
this morality, consciously voiced, was allowed to replace the 
present childhood brainwashing and myth implantation. Would 
not the psychotic outlaw — the lawless, 


pridefully immoral anarchist reacting to a body politic, the 
psychotic outlaw that is so familiar throughout all recorded 
history — would he not be bred out of existence if he had no body 
politic against which to react, if instead, he had to come up 
against men of good will who proudly defended their individual 

Admittedly there is no evidence in written history of such a 
condition but with the reality that is spread out before us — the 
non-human as well as the human reality — must it not be in order 
to ask this further question? — Could the human species that we 
love and cherish have developed if — somewhere in the two 
million years of unknown history which predates the fifteen 
thousand years that is known — the above hypothesized 
evolutionary selection had not been the manifest pattern of the 
triumphant reality? 

It must be recognized that step V cannot be seriously 
approached at this time. The working out of its details will have 
to come after passing over the off-ramp for world transition from 
the rigidly formalized primitive thought patterns to those that do 
not yet have a language for their communication. The thought 
patterns have no language but they exist now within man and can 
be brought into waking consciousness by all who allow their 
thoughts to escape from their childhood brainwashing. All who 
now have clear vision can see that there will be an opening for 
step V when the first four steps have been taken. 

But the first four steps, opening the exit to the off-ramp have 
not yet been taken, and if we now dwell on step V our 
opportunity to act may slip by while we stand talking. We live in 
a world of reality. We are dealing with force and deflecting force 
requires action. The stampede is gathering momentum. 
Deflecting it is getting a few words set down as law. The 
necessary words are known. The opportunity is open at this 
moment; it may never be again. The time for action is now. 


Beowulf, Penguin Books, Inc. New York, N.Y. 
Caesar, Gaius Julius. Caesar's commentaries on Gallic War. 

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Carrighar, Sally. 
Moonlight at Midday. Alfred A. Knopf, New 

York, N.Y. Daniel-Rops, Henry. Jesus and His Times. E.P. 
Dutton, New 

York, N.Y. Frenchen, Peter. Book of the Eskimos. Bramhall 
House, New 

York, N.Y. Gorham, Melvin. The Curse of the Ring. 
Sovereign Press, 

Rochester, WA. Gorham, Melvin. The Ring Cycle. Sovereign 
Press, Rochester 

WA. Gorham, Melvin. The Six Disciplines of Man's Being 
and Man's 

Relation to Government. Sovereign Press, Rochester, WA. 
Hamilton, Edith. The Greek Way. W.W. Norton & Co., New 

York, N.Y. Harland, John. Brave New World, A Different 

Sovereign Press, Rochester, WA. Holy Bible. King James 
Version. World Publishing Co. New 

York, N.Y. Koestler, Arthur. Trail of the Dinosaur. MacMillan 

Co. New York, N.Y. Koran. E.P. Dutton, New York, N.Y. 
Kraeling, Emnil G. Randy McNally Bible Atlas. Rand McNally 

& Co. New York, N.Y. Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane, 
Harper's Encyclopedia of 

Bible Life. Harper & Row, New York, N.Y. Nibelungenlied. 
E.P. Dutton & Co. New York, N.Y. Pedersen, Marguerite. 
Censorship in the U.S. — I Accuse the 

Jews. Sovereign Press. Rochester, WA. Plutarch. Parallel 
Lives. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 

MA. Renfrew, Colin. Ancient Europe is Older than We 

National Geographic. November 1977. Tacitus. Complete 
Works of Tacitus. Modern Library, Inc. 

Westminster, MD. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in 
America. New American 

Library, New York, N.Y. Wagner, Richard. Ring of the 
Nibelung. E.P. Dutton & Co. 

New York, N.Y.